Cherry v. Myers Timber Co.

Citations: 404 S.C. 596; 745 S.E.2d 405Docket: Appellate Case No. 2012-207686; No. 5153

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; July 3, 2013; South Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In a wrongful death and negligence appeal, Appellants contest the circuit court's summary judgment favoring Myers Timber Company, arguing that evidence existed to classify Levister Logging as an employee rather than an independent contractor. The facts reveal that Myers contracted Levister orally to cut and haul timber from a specific property, with Levister determining its own equipment and methods. The agreement allowed either party to terminate at will. On March 26, 2007, an accident occurred involving Levister's truck driven by George Rogers, resulting in fatalities and injuries after a collision with another vehicle. Appellants claimed Myers was vicariously liable for the incident, but Myers argued that Levister was an independent contractor, exempting it from liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment, determining Levister's status based on four criteria: Myers lacked control over Levister's operations, Levister was compensated based on results rather than wages, Levister owned its equipment, and Myers had no authority to hire or terminate Levister's employees. The court's summary judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact, favoring the moving party, which was upheld in this case.

Appellants assert that the circuit court wrongly granted summary judgment in favor of Myers by classifying Levister as an independent contractor instead of an employee. They claim the court erred in four key areas: (1) concluding Myers lacked the right to control Levister’s work performance; (2) finding Myers had no authority to terminate Levister’s personnel; (3) not recognizing that Myers’s control over payment elements presented a genuine issue of material fact; and (4) overlooking Myers’s control over Levister's equipment usage as a genuine issue of material fact. 

The legal principle established is that employers are generally not liable for the actions of independent contractors. The determination of independent contractor status is based on the degree of control the employer has or can exercise, focusing on the right and authority to direct how work is performed rather than actual control. The courts have identified four factors relevant to assessing the right of control: (1) direct evidence of control; (2) method of payment; (3) provision of equipment; and (4) the right to terminate employment.

In the referenced case of Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. P’ship, the court found that the Partnership engaged D. M for landscaping without controlling the specifics of how the work was executed. D. M was paid a fixed monthly amount without tax withholdings, operated at multiple job sites, and was not provided with equipment by the Partnership. Additionally, the Partnership had no authority to hire or fire D. M's employees, and D. M had discretion in carrying out maintenance tasks. The court ruled that the Partnership was not liable for D. M's negligence, affirming D. M's status as an independent contractor.

In Norris v. Poinsett Lumber, the South Carolina Supreme Court established that a logging contract formed an independent contractor relationship between Poinsett Lumber and S.C. Grant. Grant, who owned his logging equipment, was contracted to cut and haul timber for a fixed price over more than two years. Poinsett had no authority to terminate the contract as long as Grant met the conditions, and he was responsible for his own equipment and employees. The court emphasized that Poinsett's control was limited to the end result rather than the specific details of the logging operations. 

In the current case, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Myers, concluding that there was no evidence of control over Levister, who operated independently, owned his equipment, and was compensated based on results. Levister determined the method of timber harvesting and paid his own employees, similar to the relationship in Norris. Although Myers could provide feedback regarding the work quality, this did not equate to control over Levister's operations. 

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, noting that the evidence consistently pointed to Levister being an independent contractor. Additionally, Myers' contention regarding the routing of drivers was acknowledged but not appealed, solidifying the circuit court's findings as law of the case. The mention of Rogers’ acquittal on reckless homicide charges was included, noting that the jury would ultimately decide the nature of the relationship between Grant and his employee.