732 S.E.2d 630
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Collins, a South Carolina resident, was hired by West to drive a delivery van for express hot deliveries; Seko Charlotte contracted with West to deliver parts from Spartanburg, SC to Wisconsin; Collins died in a return-trip automobile accident on September 8, 2007 after delivering to Wisconsin; West’s workers’ compensation coverage had lapsed, making the Fund a party; the Commission held Collins was Seko’s statutory employee during the Wisconsin trip but not on the return trip, and found the Fund liable.
- The Fund appealed, arguing Collins ceased to be Seko’s statutory employee after delivery in Wisconsin and on the return trip there was no control or employment relationship.
- Seko conceded Collins was its statutory employee for the trip to Wisconsin but argued the relationship ended on return to South Carolina.
- The Commission relied on an independent-contractor style test and foreign state law (Georgia, North Carolina) to conclude Collins was not Seko’s statutory employee at the time of the accident.
- The supreme court reversed, holding Collins was Seko’s statutory employee for the entire trip based on South Carolina’s statutory-employment tests and the activity being part of Seko’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Collins Seko’s statutory employee at the time of the accident? | Collins was a statutory employee for the entire trip. | Control and the return trip broke the employment relationship. | Yes; Collins was Seko’s statutory employee for the entire trip. |
| Did the Commission err by applying an employee/independent contractor test and out-of-state law? | SC uses statutory-employment tests, not independent-contractor analysis. | Other jurisdictions’ tests are controlling. | Yes; improper analysis; SC tests apply. |
| Do going-and-coming, traveling, or gratuitous-worker doctrines defeat coverage here? | These doctrines do not bar coverage given statutory-employment status. | These doctrines could negate coverage if applicable. | Not controlling for determining statutory employment; analysis focused on business activity. |
| Does the activity of delivering parts constitute part of Seko’s trade/business? | Deliveries like this are an important/essential part of Seko’s business. | Return trips lack control/connection to Seko's trade. | Yes; delivery activity qualifies Collins as statutory employee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Voss v. Ramco, Inc., 325 S.C. 560 (Ct.App.1997) (statutory-employment liability extends to upstream employer when worker is employee of subcontractor; independent contractor status not dispositive)
- Olmstead v. Shakespeare, 354 S.C. 421 (2003) (three-part test: activity part of owner’s business; essential/important; previously performed by employer’s employees)
- Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 382 S.C. 295 (2009) (liberal coverage; rejects rigid employee/independent contractor distinction for WC purposes)
- Posey v. Proper Mold & Eng’g, Inc., 378 S.C. 210 (Ct.App.2008) (jurisdictional question; coverage construed liberally in favor of workers)
- Corollo v. S.S. Kresge Co., 456 F.2d 306 (4th Cir.1972) (borrowed-servant doctrine; statutory status when part of owner’s general business)