 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hammock v. United States9/30/2003
pendent contractor for the vendee it supplies within the meaning of 85 O.S. § 11 such that a retailer may potentially assume workers' compensation liability (and quid pro quo tort immunity) as a "principal employer" of the vendor's employees. Further, we conclude that the actions of the vendor in this case (delivering, stocking, rotating, inventorying, and promoting Miller beer at the PX), do not make it AAFES' independent contractor under § 11.
We decline to answer the second certified question because Southern Sales is not an independent contractor of AAFES and because that relationship is a threshold predicate for assessing AAFES' status as a principal employer under § 11.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
Both §§ 11 and 12 of Title 85 are at issue. Relevant to this opinion (and vastly over-generalized), § 11 imposes on most employers compensation liability for accidental on-the-job injuries suffered by their workers without regard to fault, and § 12 gives those employers immunity from tort liability arising out of such injuries. On the date of Hammock's injury (May 1, 1997), § 11 provided in pertinent part:
A. Every employer subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act shall pay, or provide as required by the , compensation ... for the disability ... of an employee resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury ....
B. Liability ... when other than the immediate employer of the injured employee, shall be as follows: 1. he principal employer shall also be liable...for compensation due ... employees of independent contractors ....
(emphasis added).
On the date of Hammock's injury , § 12 provided in pertinent part:
The [workers' compensation] liability prescribed in Section 11 of this title shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any of his employees ... at common law or otherwise ...; provided:
(i) the immunity created by ... this section shall not extend to action by an employee ... against another employer ... on the same job as the injured ... worker ... where such other employer does not stand in the position of ... principal employer to the immediate employer of the injured ... worker.
(emphasis added).
We paraphrase the effect of §§ 11 and 12 as they apply to this opinion.
(a) The immediate employer of a worker injured on the job is liable for compensation for that worker's injuries and therefore is immune from tort liability asserted by the injured worker.
(b) As a general rule, any other employer on the same job as the injured worker is not liable for compensation under the Act for that worker's injuries and therefore is not immune from tort liability asserted by the injured worker.
(c) However, if another employer on the same job as the injured worker qualifies as the injured worker's "principal employer" (also commonly referred to as a "statutory employer") then such employer is liable for compensation under the Act for that worker's injuries and therefore is immune from tort liability asserted by the injured worker.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. A vendor of goods does not qualify as an independent contractor of the vendee it supplies within the meaning of 85 O.S. § 11, such that a retailer may potentially assume workers' compensation liability (and quid pro quo tort immunity) as a "principal employer" of the vendor's employees.
Generally, in order to determine whether a hirer may be deemed the "statutory emplo
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|