Opinion ID: 1949793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Number Nine (9)

Text: The Court charges the jury that the payment of compensation is an incident merely and is not an essential element in the creation of the legal relation of employer and employee. The essentials to create that relation are: the voluntary rendition of service by the employee; its acceptance by the employer, and the right of the employer to direct and control the employee in the performance of the service for the employer. If you, the members of the jury, are reasonably satisfied by the evidence that at the time and place the fire alleged in this case occurred, Jimmy Bayles was rendering service for the defendant, Samuel T. Dumas, who and at that time and place had the right to direct and control Jimmy Bayles in the performance of the service Jimmy Bayles was then and there performing, the Court charges you that Jimmy Bayles at said time and place was, in contemplation of law, the employee of the defendant, Samuel T. Dumas, and the fact that the defendant did or did not pay compensation directly to Jimmy Bayles for those services does not alter or change that relation of employer-employee. Dumas claims that each of the charges are incurable misstatements of the law misdefining the loaned servant doctrine. In support he cites Lucas v. Kirk, 275 Ala. 20, 151 So.2d 744. On request of Dumas the following written charges were given: