444 P.3d 139
Alaska2019Background
- John Buckley was a Labor Ready temporary worker assigned to American Fast Freight; Labor Ready paid wages and provided workers’ compensation; contract prohibited temporary workers from operating dangerous machinery.
- On Dec. 22, 2011, while on an unpaid lunch break accompanying driver Denny Hawkins, Buckley assisted in attempts to free another driver’s stuck truck by laying tire chains and was severely injured when a wheel severed his arm.
- AKOSH fined American Fast Freight and the company acknowledged temporary employees should not have been involved with tire chains; Buckley received workers’ compensation benefits from Labor Ready.
- Buckley sued American Fast Freight and driver Matthew Carroll for negligence; American Fast Freight asserted the exclusive remedy of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act under AS 23.30.055.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for American Fast Freight, finding (1) a Tuboscope special-employer relationship existed and (2) the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; Buckley appealed.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding material factual disputes existed on both special-employer status and whether the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment given the conceded prohibition on the activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buckley) | Defendant's Argument (American Fast Freight) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Fast Freight was Buckley’s "special employer" under Tuboscope test | No implied contract of hire; Labor Ready retained control and assignment; Buckley did not interview or understand he was hired by AFF | Tuboscope factors met: implied hire, work for AFF, AFF had right to supervise; AFF thus subject to exclusive remedy | Reversed — disputed facts (no clear implied hire, control, or termination power) precluded summary judgment on special-employer status |
| Whether the injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" (work-relatedness) | Injury occurred during unpaid lunch and while engaging in activity prohibited by contract and company rules, so not within statutory categories | Clock status irrelevant; activity occurred at work site, benefitted AFF, and was foreseeable; thus compensable | Reversed — conceded facts that the activity was expressly prohibited create material dispute; expressly prohibited acts cannot be held work-related as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Tuboscope Vetco, Inc., 9 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2000) (adopts three-part special-employer test)
- Estate of Milos v. Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc., 145 P.3d 533 (Alaska 2006) (factors for determining whether injury arose out of and in the course of employment)
- Cluff v. NANA-Marriott, 892 P.2d 164 (Alaska 1995) (stricter standards for lent-employee special-employer relationships)
- M-K Rivers v. Schleifman, 599 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1979) (discussion of statutory definition of "arising out of and in the course of employment")