Aimwell, Inc. v. McLendon Enterprises, Inc.
318 Ga. App. 394
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gaffney, employed by Aimwell as a truck foreman, was injured while driving a McLendon truck; he also performed supervisory duties for Aimwell.
- Gaffney was deemed to be in the joint service of Aimwell and McLendon at the time of injury, with evidence of near complete overlap in functions.
- Aimwell paid Gaffney wages; McLendon did not pay him directly and McLendon required Aimwell to provide workers’ compensation insurance.
- McLendon’s supervisor completed Gaffney’s timesheet showing hours for both Aimwell and McLendon, and Aimwell billed McLendon and was reimbursed for the driving hours.
- The ALJ found Gaffney a borrowed servant of McLendon and, due to joint employment, ordered 50/50 liability; the Appellate Division upheld joint employment but allocated 100% liability to Aimwell under OCGA § 34-9-224; the superior court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCGA § 34-9-224 wage liability must be allocated by proportion | Aimwell: Aimwell has sole wage liability for Gaffney. | McLendon: statute supports proportional allocation between joint employers. | Aimwell had sole wage liability; 100% allocation to Aimwell. |
| Borrowed servant vs joint employment analysis under 34-9-224 | Aimwell relies on Bennett to limit wage-liability focus when borrowed servant exists. | McLendon argues proper analysis requires consideration of wage liability and 34-9-224 allocation. | Appellate and superior courts properly applied law; Bennett does not dictate contrary result; allocation under 34-9-224 affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Browning, 196 Ga. App. 158 (1990) (borrowed servant vs joint employment distinction)
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Nicks, 215 Ga. App. 381 (1994) (control elements of borrowed servant)
- United States Fidelity &c. Co. v. Forrester, 230 Ga. 182 (1973) (general vs special employer control test)
- Spectera, Inc. v. Wilson, 317 Ga. App. 64 (2012) (appellate review and statutory interpretation context)
- Caremore, Inc. &c. v. Hollis, 283 Ga. App. 681 (2007) (statutory interpretation context)