Title: Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Crosby
Citation: 393 So. 2d 1348
Docket Number: 52347
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: February 18, 1981

393 So. 2d 1348 (1981) GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Employer v. Johnnie Gene CROSBY. No. 52347. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 18, 1981. Crymes G. Pittman and Karen Spencer, Cothren, Pittman &amp; Ferrell, Jackson, for appellant. E. Howard Eaton, Taylorsville, for appellee. Before BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ. LEE, Justice, for the Court: The Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission entered an order granting compensation benefits to Johnnie Gene Crosby against Georgia-Pacific Corporation (self-insured) for total and permanent disability. Georgia-Pacific appealed to the Circuit Court of Scott County, which affirmed the Commission, and, from that judgment, Georgia-Pacific has appealed here. Three (3) assignments of error are discussed in the briefs, but the question to be decided by this Court is whether Georgia-Pacific was the employer of Hosey Brothers Loggers (Hosey Bros.) and whether Hosey Bros. was an independent contractor, relieving Georgia-Pacific of any liability incurred by Hosey Bros. in its employee relationships. On August 29, 1973, appellee was working as a sawyer for Hosey Bros. He cut a tree which lodged in another tree and upon cutting the second tree, the first tree came loose, fell on him, injured his spine, and rendered him a paraplegic, permanently and totally disabled. For a period of eleven (11) months, Hosey Bros. made voluntary weekly payments of fifty-five dollars ($55.00) to appellee, but, at the end of that period, the payments were discontinued. Thereupon, appellee filed a claim for compensation benefits against Georgia-Pacific, who now contends that appellee was not employed by it, that he was employed by Hosey Bros., an independent contractor, and that Georgia-Pacific has no liability in the matter. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-3 (1972) defines "independent contractor" for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act: *1349 Factors for determining independent contractors have been discussed frequently in Mississippi decisions. One of the clearest pronouncements of the law, stated in Boyd v. Crosby Lumber and Mfg. Co., 250 Miss. 433, 166 So. 2d 106 (1964), sets forth the control test. The Court said: Without detailing the evidence, the administrative judge found, and the Commission affirmed and adopted, the following: (1) That at the time of the accident, Hosey Bros. had been cutting and hauling timber for Georgia-Pacific exclusively since May of 1972; (2) That timber and logs were an integral part of the business of Georgia-Pacific at its plants at Bay Springs and Taylorsville, Mississippi; (3) That the employees of Georgia-Pacific supervised the cutting of the timber by Hosey Bros.; (4) That Georgia-Pacific varied the specifications and size of timber that was to be carried to each plant at its discretion, even though a contract was signed between Hosey Bros. and Georgia-Pacific, and that this was done in order to control the flow of material to each mill as it was needed; (5) That Georgia-Pacific set the time that the timber could be loaded and unloaded by Hosey Bros.; (6) That Georgia-Pacific set the price to be paid to loggers on each tract of timber based on its own policy; (7) That Georgia-Pacific controlled the amount of timber that could be delivered to its plants at Bay Springs and Taylorsville, Mississippi, by placing the loggers on a quota even though the logger had a contract for a certain volume each week; (8) That Georgia-Pacific could move the logger from one tract to another at its discretion even though the logger had a contract for a specific tract; (9) That Georgia-Pacific and the logger had a series of short-term contracts from five (5) to twenty-eight (28) days in length, and further, that there were dual contracts in cases where Georgia-Pacific would move the logger from a tract that the logger had started but had not completed and had been removed from the original tract to another tract at the discretion of Georgia-Pacific; (10) That Georgia-Pacific assisted in the financing of equipment for Hosey Bros. through loan guaranty agreements with Smith County Bank at Taylorsville, Mississippi, and, further, that Georgia-Pacific assisted the logger in obtaining operating capital through the Smith County Bank and, more particularly, for a loan in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to Hosey Bros.; (11) That Georgia-Pacific could terminate the logger, and, more particularly, Hosey Bros., at will; *1350 (12) That Georgia-Pacific had notice of the injuries to claimant through its employee, Hosey Bros., on August 29, 1973; and (13) That Georgia-Pacific had the "right to control" and, in fact, control of the operations of Hosey Bros. and the nature of the work of Hosey Bros. was an integral part of Georgia-Pacific's business. We now consider whether or not the relative nature of the work performed under the contract is an integral part of the regular business of Georgia-Pacific. 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law § 45 (1979) also states the rule: In Brown v. L.A. Penn &amp; Son, 227 So. 2d 470 (Miss. 1969), the Court said: Persons familiar with the business of lumber companies and with logging operations recognize that it is beneficial to such companies that loggers be separated from those businesses. Such an arrangement allows for the execution of independent contracts with the loggers, thereby relieving the lumber companies of a great deal of responsibility, particularly public and employee liability. However, the Workmen's Compensation Law was enacted to compensate the injured employee and to satisfy the public interest in protecting its citizens. An independent contract must be a valid contract and may not be a sham to be disregarded, cancelled or unenforced at the whim of a company. We agree with the statement in Brown v. E.L. Bruce Co., 253 Miss. 1, 175 So. 2d 151 (1965), citing Robinson v. Younse Lumber Co., 8 La. App. 160 (1927): We are of the opinion that the order of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission awarding compensation benefits to appellee is supported by substantial evidence and the judgment of the lower court upholding that order is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.