 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gunter v. OTM Corp.3/26/2002
the known facts. Id. at 694.
Defendants assert that the following factors show that Oakland was plaintiff's employer: (1) that the sole shareholder of OTM, who is related to the sole shareholder of Oakland, is also an officer and director of Oakland and receives payment from Oakland; (2) that both OTM and Oakland are insured under the same worker's compensation policy; (3) that Oakland personnel perform central bookkeeping and check writing functions for OTM; (4) that the bulk of OTM's work is subcontracted from Oakland; (5) that combined financial statements of the two companies are used in obtaining loans; and (6) that salaried employees receive their pay from Oakland, subject to reimbursement by OTM to Oakland.
The foregoing facts show that the two companies are related. However, the only factor supporting a finding that Oakland was plaintiff's employer is that, as an employee working on business subcontracted to OTM, plaintiff's duties were an integral part of Oakland's business. Indeed, there is no indication in the record that Oakland controlled plaintiff's duties, paid his wages, or had the right to hire, fire or discipline him. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit court erred in concluding that Oakland was entitled to the protection of the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA.
Nonetheless, we find that summary disposition in favor of Oakland was proper because liability was dependent upon Oakland being vicariously liable for the negligence of John Burnell. In order to determine whether Oakland was Burnell's employer for purposes of respondeat superior liability, the proper test is the control test. Norris v State Farm & Casualty Co, 229 Mich App 231, 239; 581 NW2d 746 (1998). The control test focuses on who has the right to direct and control the employee. May v Harper Hospital, 185 Mich App 548, 553; 462 NW2d 754 (1990). Liability arises from the detailed activities of an employee that are controlled by the employer. Hoffman v JDM Assoc, Inc, 213 Mich App 466, 469; 540 NW2d 689 (1995). "In applying this test, we look at the work the employee was performing when the injury for which suit has been brought was sustained." May, supra.
In this case, the evidence showed that Oakland did not have control over Burnell at the time of plaintiff's injury . On the contrary, the submitted evidence established that Burnell was under OTM's control. The facts show that Burnell was hired as a production manager for OTM and that OTM had the right to hire and fire Burnell. OTM was also ultimately responsible for Burnell's salary and paid it by reimbursing Oakland. Further, Burnell's work was an integral part of OTM because his office was located at OTM's facility and his job focused on the daily plant operations at OTM. More importantly, at the time of the accident, Burnell was performing a supervisory function for OTM. Although Burnell's direct supervisor, Johann Geisz, was a shared employee of Oakland and OTM, was the Vice President of Operations for both Oakland and OTM, and had offices at both Oakland and OTM, there was no evidence that Geisz was acting other than as an OTM employee in his supervision of Burnell. Accordingly, there is no basis for subjecting Oakland to vicarious liability for Burnell's actions. We will not reverse the circuit court's decision when the right result was reached for the wrong reason. Taylor v Laban, 241 Mich App 449, 458; 616 NW2d 229 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's grant of summary disposition in favor of Oakland.
Plaintiff further purports that the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of OTM. We disagree.
The facts in this case do not support a conclusion that Burn
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|