Michael James v. Brian Dedeaux
2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 89
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael James (Aladdin employee) was injured when a scissor lift operated by Brian Dedeaux struck him on a Keesler AFB construction project.
- Dedeaux was employed by Constructor Services, Inc. (CSI), which contracted with Aladdin to supply labor for the project.
- James sued Dedeaux and CSI in tort; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the borrowed‑servant doctrine and workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding Dedeaux was a "loaned" (borrowed) servant of Aladdin; James appealed.
- Evidence showed Dedeaux worked alongside Aladdin crews for >2 months, used Aladdin tools and equipment, received assignments and direct supervision from Aladdin supervisors, and performed Aladdin’s normal work.
- CSI’s contract purported to retain supervisory/control rights, but on‑site testimony indicated the contractual allocation of control was not the reality of supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dedeaux was a borrowed servant of Aladdin | Dedeaux remained under CSI’s control; CSI retained hiring/firing and had onsite supervisors | Dedeaux performed Aladdin’s work under Aladdin’s direct control and accepted temporary assignment | Court: Yes — Dedeaux was a borrowed servant of Aladdin at the time of the injury |
| Effect of on‑paper contract terms vs. actual workplace control | James: contract language showing CSI supervision negates borrowed‑servant finding | Defendants: actual day‑to‑day supervision and performance control by Aladdin governs despite contract language | Court: Actual supervision/control on site governs; realities can override contract terms |
| Remedy available to James | James: factual disputes about control preclude summary judgment; tort suit viable | Defendants: exclusivity of workers’ compensation applies if borrowed‑servant rule satisfied | Court: Workers’ compensation is exclusive remedy; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorton v. Rance, 52 So.3d 351 (definition and three‑factor test for borrowed servant)
- Northern Elec. Co. v. Phillips, 660 So.2d 1278 (temporary employment agency rule supports summary judgment where employee performs normal work and is supervised by host employer)
- Jones v. James Reeves Contractors Inc., 701 So.2d 774 (discussion of control/ultimate authority in borrowed‑servant analysis)
- Quick Change Oil & Lube Inc. v. Rogers, 663 So.2d 585 (restatement of borrowed‑servant common law rule)
- Davis v. Hoss, 869 So.2d 397 (summary judgment standard)
- Roberts v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, 108 So.3d 471 (reality of workplace can modify express contract provisions)
- Baldwin v. Kelly Servs. Inc., 121 So.3d 275 (temporary staffing precedent applying borrowed‑servant principles)