Lacey v. American Shell Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1993 |
| Citation | 628 So.2d 684 |
| Parties | Hollis LACEY, v. AMERICAN SHELL COMPANY, INC. AV92000136. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
John D. Clement, Jr., Tuscumbia, for appellant.
David K. Howard and Benjamin H. Albritton of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Tanner, P.C., Tuscumbia, for appellee.
Hollis Lacey filed a complaint for workmen's compensation benefits in the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama, against American Shell Company, Inc. (American Shell), alleging that he was owed benefits for a work-related injury. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of American Shell. Lacey appeals. The sole issue on appeal is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between American Shell and Lacey for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Brownfield v. Revco D.S., Inc., 612 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). (Citations omitted.)
In cases involving summary judgment, no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's decision and our review is de novo. Also, in determining whether substantial evidence exists, we review the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Brownfield, supra.
The record reveals that American Shell is in the business of processing mussel shells and then shipping the shells overseas. Roger Bratschi, a regional manager of American Shell, hired Lacey to perform electrical and plumbing work at American Shell's Cherokee plant. Bratschi and Lacey agreed that Lacey would be paid by the hour. Lacey supplied his own tools, and his business card describes his business as "Lacey's Electrical and Plumbing Service." While doing electrical work, Lacey fell some 23 feet off a ladder and was injured.
The test in determining whether a person is considered an employee or an independent contractor is the "right of control" test. Luallen v. Noojin, 545 So.2d 775 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Several factors have been used by this court to determine the right of control. Among these factors are direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; the method of payment used; whether the individual had the right to terminate employment; and the right to control another's time. Williams v. Tennessee River...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talley v. Sonnier
...Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); see Willard v. Perry, 611 So.2d 358 (Ala.1992), Lacey v. American Shell Co., 628 So.2d 684 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). In reviewing the statute and case law, we find support for the Talleys' argument that they produced substantial eviden......
-
HOOKER CONST., INC. v. Walker
...whether a person is considered an employee or an independent contractor, we apply the "right-of-control" test. Lacey v. American Shell Co., 628 So.2d 684 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). When applying this test, we consider the following factors: direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; the ......
-
Robison By and Through Robison v. Gantt
...no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's decision, and this court's review is de novo. Lacey v. American Shell Co., 628 So.2d 684 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). Robison contends that the summary judgment was improper because the owners knew, or should have known, that snakes were pr......
-
Wheeler v. Wright
...Also, no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court's decision, and our review is de novo. See Lacey v. American Shell Co., 628 So.2d 684 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). Wheeler first contends that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wright was his employer, and that th......