373 So.3d 759
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- Dawson injured at Dollar General warehouse while assisting co-worker Burgs with a pallet jack; Dawson received workers’ compensation benefits from Brambles/Liberty Mutual.
- Burgs had been assigned to the same Dollar General site by Professional Staffing, which provided Burgs’ workers’ compensation coverage per a temporary service agreement.
- The Professional Staffing–Dollar General agreement described assigned workers as employees of Professional Staffing (not Dollar General), required staffing to provide compensation/benefits, limited equipment use without staffing’s written permission, and labeled Professional Staffing an independent contractor; the agreement’s initial term was one year (dated Sept./Oct. 2018).
- Barbara Johnson (Professional Staffing office manager) averred Professional Staffing did not control Burgs’ job assignments, supervision, training, or the pallet jack at issue; Dollar General trained and supervised Burgs on site.
- Dawson sued Burgs and Professional Staffing for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting Burgs was a borrowed servant of Dollar General and the exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation; the circuit court granted summary judgment and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burgs was a "borrowed servant" of Dollar General (so MWCA is exclusive remedy) | Dawson: contractual language and provisions (staffing retains employment status and control, limits on equipment use) create a factual dispute over control and preclude borrowed-servant finding | Defendants: Burgs performed Dollar General’s work, was trained and supervised by Dollar General, voluntarily accepted assignment — facts show Dollar General had control and Burgs was a borrowed servant | Court: Burgs was a borrowed servant; MWCA exclusive remedy applies; summary judgment proper |
| Whether Professional Staffing is vicariously liable for Burgs’ negligence | Dawson: Professional Staffing retained employment control per contract and should remain liable | Professional Staffing: lacked control/supervision at workplace; Burgs was under Dollar General’s control | Court: Professional Staffing not vicariously liable; barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity and fellow-servant immunity |
| Effect of written staffing agreement and its stated term on control analysis | Dawson: express contract provisions (employee status, equipment restrictions, payment, benefits) create a genuine issue of fact about who had control | Defendants: parties’ actual conduct and workplace reality can override written terms; agreement had one-year initial term and workplace reality shows Dollar General’s control | Court: actual control and parties’ conduct govern; written provisions did not create a triable issue here |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given record | Dawson: factual disputes (contract terms, lack of proof about permission to use pallet jack, ongoing staffing contact) require trial | Defendants: affidavits, training records, and admissions show no genuine dispute on control | Court: viewing evidence favorably to movants, no significant probative evidence from Dawson to create genuine fact issue; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Dedeaux, 217 So. 3d 785 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (sets out borrowed-servant test and permits workplace reality to modify contract language)
- Baldwin v. Kelly Servs., 121 So. 3d 275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (summary judgment can be proper when temporary-agency worker performs the host employer’s normal work under its control)
- N. Elec. Co. v. Phillips, 660 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1995) (one may have more than one employer and borrowed-servant analysis governs immunity)
- Quick Change Oil & Lube Inc. v. Rogers, 663 So. 2d 585 (Miss. 1995) (lender escapes liability only if borrower has exclusive control of the servant)
- McCluskey v. Thompson, 363 So. 2d 256 (Miss. 1978) (Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act bars suit against a fellow servant when covered by the Act)
- Roberts v. Northrop Grumman Ship Sys. Inc., 108 So. 3d 471 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (contractual language can create a fact issue on borrowed-servant status, but clear workplace control may outweigh contract terms)
- Gorton v. Rance, 52 So. 3d 351 (Miss. 2011) (discusses borrowed-servant doctrine and relevant factors)