McKee Foods Corp. v. Lawrence
310 Ga. App. 122
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Jerry Lawrence and wife sued Carswell, TDS, and McKee Foods for damages from a collision caused by Carswell.
- Plaintiff alleged vicarious liability of McKee for Carswell’s negligence based on an explicit distributorship arrangement with TDS.
- McKee moved for summary judgment arguing no employer-employee relationship and no control over Carswell or TDS.
- Trial court denied McKee’s summary-judgment motion; appellate court granted interlocutory appeal and reversed.
- Distributorship agreement labeled TDS as independent contractor and stated McKee would not control day-to-day operations.
- Record showed TDS and Carswell controlled time, manner, and method of work; McKee imposed only broad quality guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the distributorship create an employer-employee relationship for vicarious liability? | Lawrences contend control by McKee over day-to-day ops shows employer-employee status. | Agreement designates independent contractor status; no right to control day-to-day work. | No; independent contractor relationship exists; no vicarious liability. |
| Did McKee retain control over time, manner, and method of the work? | Provisions on storage, insurance, territory, and branding show control. | Provisions set guidelines, not day-to-day control; actual control rests with TDS. | McKee lacked control over day-to-day operations; no employer-employee relation. |
| Does the contract's independent-contractor designation prevail over contrary evidence? | Contract-and other terms imply McKee exercises control that negates independent status. | Independent-contractor designation is strong evidence of no employer-employee relation. | Designation stands; evidence does not establish employment relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaine v. McLeod, 291 Ga.App. 335 (2008) (control of time, manner, and method determines employment status)
- Schlotzsky's, Inc. v. Hyde, 245 Ga.App. 888 (2000) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of facts)
- Pizza K, Inc. v. Santagata, 249 Ga.App. 36 (2001) (franchisor’s control not equal to day-to-day control)
- Frey v. Pepsico, 191 Ga.App. 585 (1989) (limits of control in distributorship contexts)
- Tanner v. USA Today, 179 Ga.App. 722 (1986) (contractual language and actual practice govern employment status)