572 S.W.3d 707
Tex. App.2019Background
- Stevenson, hired by temporary-employer Taylor Smith, was injured when a Waste Management truck driven by Waste Management employee Zelaya ran over his leg while Stevenson was working as a helper on the truck.
- Taylor Smith and Waste Management had a written Master Agreement stating Taylor Smith and its personnel would be independent contractors with respect to Waste Management and would not be Waste Management employees; Taylor Smith retained hiring, firing, payroll, and Workers’ Compensation responsibilities.
- Stevenson sued Waste Management and Zelaya for negligence and respondeat superior; defendants moved for traditional summary judgment asserting the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy bars Stevenson’s claims because he was a Waste Management employee covered by its workers’ compensation insurance.
- Trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment and dismissed Stevenson’s claims; Stevenson appealed arguing a fact issue exists whether he was Waste Management’s employee.
- The court analyzed whether the written contract conclusively establishes independent-contractor status under the Love framework and considered evidence of actual control (testimony from Stevenson, Zelaya, Taylor Smith owner, and Waste Management representative).
- The court concluded the summary-judgment evidence raised a genuine fact issue under the Love standard about whether Waste Management had the right to control the details of Stevenson’s work and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act’s exclusive-remedy bars Stevenson’s negligence claims by establishing he was Waste Management’s employee | Stevenson: Master Agreement and evidence do not conclusively show he was Waste Management’s employee; genuine fact issue exists | Waste Management: Master Agreement and evidence show Stevenson was a Waste Management employee covered by its workers’ compensation | Reversed: summary judgment improper; fact issue exists whether Waste Management had right/control to make Stevenson an employee under Love |
| Whether the Master Agreement conclusively governs right-to-control analysis | Stevenson: Contract not conclusive; actual control evidence can override contract under Love exceptions | Waste Management: Contract explicitly labels personnel as independent contractors and precludes employee status | Court: Contract is significant but not conclusive; Love standard applies and exceptions may create fact issues |
| Whether actual exercise of control by Waste Management at time of injury is undisputed | Stevenson: Testimony shows drivers and route managers directed helpers; Taylor Smith conceded client supervision in the field | Waste Management: Points to contract and some testimony denying ongoing control on the day of accident | Court: Conflicting testimony raises genuine fact issue about actual control |
| Whether Garza controls because worker was not on client premises | Stevenson: Distinguishes Garza because here written contract addresses status and Stevenson was not on Waste Management premises | Waste Management: Relies on reasoning that client control can create employee status | Court: Garza instructive but not controlling; use traditional indicia and Love test instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2005) (sets factors showing temporary-agency worker may be the client’s employee for workers’ compensation purposes)
- Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 380 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. 1964) (written contract labeling independent-contractor status is not always conclusive; outlines exceptions and when actual control can override contract)
- Exxon Corp. v. Perez, 842 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1992) (trial evidence can raise fact issues on borrowed-employee/employee status despite contract terms)
- City of Bellaire v. Johnson, 400 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2013) (right-to-control test focuses on progress, details, and methods of work)
- Olivares v. Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc., 401 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (discusses independent-contractor characteristics and control inquiry)