Court Reverses Summary Judgment Finding That Plaintiff Was an Employee
In Sager v. Innovative Lighting, dba Hawkeye Molding, Inc., No. 15-0783 (Iowa App. May 25, 2016), plaintiff had filed a common law negligence action against Innovative Lighting. Plaintiff had been hired for work at Hawkeye by Jacobson Staffing, which was apparently how all parties work for Hawkeye. Jacobson provides workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Plaintiff was injured at Hawkeye and filed a workers' compensation claim against Jacobson, for which he received a settlement.
Plaintiff's attorneys had communications with Hawkeye concerning the filing of a third party action, and filed suit claiming negligence against Hawkeye for an injury to his hand from a burn resulting from hot liquid. Hawkeye filed a motion for summary judgment claimant that it was immune from liability under the exclusivity provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20. The district court concluded, in ruling in favor of Hawkeye, that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that plaintiff was an employee of Hawkeye and thus the exclusivity provisions barred the negligence action.
The Court of Appeals reverses the district court's ruling. The court notes that an employee may have more than one employer and the question is whether the worker entered into a contract of hire, express or implied. The court noted that in determining an employment relationship in a borrowed servant situation, the primary focus was the intent of the parties. The court concluded that the five factor test for determining whether a person was an employee was not dispositive in the borrowed servant situation, Under the record presented, the court could not say as a matter of law that there was an informed and deliberate intent to enter into an employment relationship. Although the facts were largely undisputed, the inferences to be drawn from the facts were not. The case was therefore remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether Mr. Sager was an employee of Hawkeye.
Plaintiff's attorneys had communications with Hawkeye concerning the filing of a third party action, and filed suit claiming negligence against Hawkeye for an injury to his hand from a burn resulting from hot liquid. Hawkeye filed a motion for summary judgment claimant that it was immune from liability under the exclusivity provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20. The district court concluded, in ruling in favor of Hawkeye, that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that plaintiff was an employee of Hawkeye and thus the exclusivity provisions barred the negligence action.
The Court of Appeals reverses the district court's ruling. The court notes that an employee may have more than one employer and the question is whether the worker entered into a contract of hire, express or implied. The court noted that in determining an employment relationship in a borrowed servant situation, the primary focus was the intent of the parties. The court concluded that the five factor test for determining whether a person was an employee was not dispositive in the borrowed servant situation, Under the record presented, the court could not say as a matter of law that there was an informed and deliberate intent to enter into an employment relationship. Although the facts were largely undisputed, the inferences to be drawn from the facts were not. The case was therefore remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether Mr. Sager was an employee of Hawkeye.
It amazes me sometimes that even intelligent people will analyze a situation or make a judgement after only recognizing the standard or traditional structure of a piece. See the link below for more info.
ReplyDelete#judgement
www.ufgop.org