Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Charles v. Lincoln Construction Co.
Citations: 235 Ark. 470; 361 S.W.2d 1; 1962 Ark. LEXIS 603Docket: 5-2754
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 1, 1962; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The appellant, a laborer injured while working on the construction of a school building in Star City, Arkansas, filed a workers' compensation claim against Lincoln Construction Company, asserting he was an employee entitled to compensation for his injury. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission denied his claim, a decision later affirmed by the Lincoln Circuit Court. The record indicates that the appellant was intermittently employed by Lincoln Construction and worked under foreman Phillip McFall. The Star City School District opted to construct two school buildings using its own employees instead of contracting out the work, designating McFall as the general superintendent. There was no formal contract between Lincoln Construction and the School District, and McFall independently recruited laborers, who were compensated by the School District. The appellant's wages were paid separately for work done at the school site and at Lincoln Construction jobs, with checks issued from the respective payers. Relevant legal principles regarding dual employment were cited, indicating that for the special employer (the School District) to be liable for compensation, the employee must have an employment contract with them, the work must be theirs, and they must have control over the work details. The determination of the employer-employee relationship at the time of injury is crucial, as dual employment scenarios can exist where an employee serves different employers for different tasks. The determination of employer liability hinges on which employer had the right to control the specific act that led to the injury. According to Restatement Agency, § 227, comment a (2), the key consideration is whether the employee was acting under the direction of a specific employer at the time of the incident, rather than merely being a general employee. The record shows that appellant Charles worked for two separate employers at different times, indicating that his work was distinct and separable. A critical factor is whether Charles was aware and consented to work for the School District. Case law, including Ledbetter v. Adams, establishes that an original employer remains liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act until the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to be informed of any change in employer status. This presumption of continued employment exists for a reasonable period following a business sale without the employee's knowledge. In this case, Charles received different checks from the School District and Lincoln Construction, clearly indicating his awareness of his employment status. Testimony from Charles and a fellow worker affirmed that while they worked on the school construction, they understood they were employed by the School District and were compensated accordingly. The evidence supports the conclusion that the appellee had no control over the school construction job and that Charles was sufficiently informed of his employment status. Consequently, the Circuit Court's judgment affirming the findings was upheld, with dissent from Justices Robinson and Johnson.