Charlton v. United Steel Erectors
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 704 S.W.2d 273 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George Edward CHARLTON, Employee, v. UNITED STEEL ERECTORS and Cigna-Ina-Aetna, Appellants, and L & M Erectors Company and Gulf Insurance Company, Respondents. 36682. |
Daniel K. Atwill, Knight, Ford, Wright, Atwill & Parshall, of counsel, Columbia, for appellants.
Edward W. Warner, Evans & Dixon, of counsel, St. Louis, for respondents.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD and BERREY, JJ.
In this workers' compensation case, the question is which of two possible employers is responsible for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law to an employee injured on October 26, 1981. An Administrative Law Judge found that United Steel Erectors was the responsible employer, which was affirmed by the Labor and Industrial Commission.
George Charlton, known in the trade as one of the best iron workers in central Missouri, was working regularly for respondent, L & M Erectors, a few months before he went to United Steel to work on a building it was providing steel for in Boone County, Missouri. The issue is whether Charlton was a "borrowed employee" and under "loan" to United Steel by L & M Erectors. United Steel had a contract with Smarr to erect the steel work on the building, and L & M had no interest in that contract.
The arrangement between L & M and United Steel was that the latter would pay L & M $25 per hour per man (for two men) and $100 per week for the use of tools and a truck by the employees.
Charlton and another L & M employee, Duncan, entered into their duties with United Steel about 2 1/2 weeks before October 26, 1981, when Charlton fell from the roof of the project and was injured. Prior to that time United Steel had pulled its foreman and 6 or 7 men off the Boone County job and sent them to the A.P. Green job in Mexico, Missouri, which was more lucrative. Charlton was to replace United Steel's foreman. L & M loaned Charlton to United Steel because its business was then slow.
Duncan testified that he agreed and consented to go on United Steel's job, and he and Charlton went there and worked for several weeks with its employees, doing United Steel's work. Charlton picked up Duncan daily and drove to the job site. It was Duncan's understanding that if materials were needed, the men would notify United Steel's owner, Montgomery, who was on the job regularly moving materials with his crane. Charlton was Montgomery's foreman, running the job for him and supervising other employees.
L & M had nothing to do with United Steel's job; it had no control over it; no obligation to Smarr, or to anyone other than paying the two loaned men. L & M's McGinnis testified that Charlton consented to go over to United Steel to finish up the job.
Under the facts, the case of Ellegood v. Brashear Freight Lines, Inc., 236 Mo.App. 971, 162 S.W.2d 628 (1942), is controlling. There, plaintiff sought to sue a "special employer" in tort, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santos v. Standard Havens, Inc.
...A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Com'n, 82 Ill.2d 341, 45 Ill.Dec. 126, 412 N.E.2d 477 (1980); Charlton v. United Steel Erectors, 704 S.W.2d 273 (Mo.Ct.App.1986). Primarily, it is well-settled Under the control test, the actual exercise of control is not as determinative as the right o......