White v. Henshaw
363 So.2d 986 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists for worker's compensation purposes hinges on the employer's reserved right to control the manner and means of the work, not just the desired result, as evaluated through factors like method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the right to fire.
Facts:
- The defendant operated a cotton-hauling brokerage firm, arranging the transportation of ginned cotton from warehouses to textile mills.
- The defendant employed 'employee drivers' who operated defendant's trucks, had all expenses paid by the defendant, received a base salary plus a percentage of hauls, and were subject to defendant's direct instructions and payroll deductions.
- The decedent was an 'owner driver' who owned his own truck, paid all his own expenses (maintenance, fuel, liability insurance), and was responsible for any additional help he used.
- The decedent was paid 90% of the gross for each load of cotton he delivered, with the defendant retaining a 10% 'brokerage fee', and received payments at irregular intervals, only when loads were hauled.
- The decedent chose his own routes, was not under a duty to contact the defendant after a delivery, and occasionally secured return hauls from other sources, even during the cotton-hauling season.
- The decedent displayed his own name, address, and telephone number on his vehicle and filed income tax returns as a sole proprietor, depreciating his equipment and taking business deductions.
- On August 7, 1975, while delivering a load of cotton pursuant to an arrangement with the defendant, the decedent was involved in an accident in North Carolina, which resulted in his death.
- The decedent's wife, the plaintiff, subsequently filed suit seeking benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's wife (plaintiff) filed suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County seeking workmen's compensation benefits.
- The Circuit Court of Madison County denied workmen's compensation benefits, finding no employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff's decedent and the defendant at the time of the accident.
- The plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's denial of benefits to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer-employee relationship exist for purposes of workmen's compensation benefits when a cotton hauler, operating his own truck and controlling the details of his work, is paid per load by a brokerage firm that retains only the right to direct the pick-up and delivery points?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, an employer-employee relationship did not exist for purposes of workmen's compensation benefits because the defendant did not retain the right to control the manner and means of the decedent's work. The court affirmed the trial court's finding, applying the 'reserved right of control' test, which distinguishes an employee from an independent contractor based on whether the alleged employer retains the right to direct not only what shall be done but how it shall be done. The court considered principal factors: direct evidence of control, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the right to fire. The evidence showed defendant's control over decedent extended only to ensuring a satisfactory end result (e.g., maintaining harmonious relations with suppliers and mills, protecting cotton), not dictating the details of decedent's work, such as routes. The decedent owned his own truck, paid his own expenses, was paid per load (not a salary), and could refuse loads, which significantly distinguished him from the defendant's 'employee drivers.' Furthermore, the defendant's ability to refuse loads did not equate to a right to fire. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the decedent was furnishing an independent business service, and therefore, no employer-employee relationship existed to entitle the plaintiff to workmen's compensation benefits.
Concurring - Wright, P.J.
Concurred.
Concurring - Bradley, J.
Concurred.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional 'right to control' test as the primary determinant for distinguishing employees from independent contractors in Alabama worker's compensation cases. It highlights that the critical factor is not just the objective to be achieved, but the control over the means of achieving it. The court's detailed application of the four principal factors provides a practical framework for future courts to assess employment status, emphasizing that no single factor is determinative but all must be considered in conjunction with the degree of control. This decision also explicitly declined to adopt the 'relative nature of the work' test, thereby maintaining a more traditional approach in Alabama law regarding employment status.
