Opinion ID: 1662000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: summary judgment for russo

Text: A corporation can act only through its servants, agents, or employees; but the acts of those servants, agents, or employees are not the acts of the corporation unless the servants, agents, or employees are acting for the corporationunless their acts are done in or about the duties assigned them or are accomplished within the line and scope of their duties. See, Martin v. Anniston Foundry Co., 259 Ala. 633, 68 So.2d 323 (1953). However, one in the general employ of one master may with respect to particular work be transferred to the service of a third person in such a way that he becomes for the time being the servant of that person, with all the legal consequences of that relationship: In cases of this nature, consideration must be given to the character of the service to be rendered, the duration of employment, and the one who is paying the employee. These considerations, however, are merely aids in determining the relation and do not necessarily determine the relationship. They are to be applied only in those cases where the evidence does not clearly establish who is the employer. The true criterion is the exercise of power to control the employee at the time of the commission of the act. Martin v. Anniston Foundry Co., 259 Ala. at 637, 68 So.2d at 327. `An employee may be in the general service of another, and, nevertheless, with respect to particular work, may be transferred, with his own consent or acquiescence, to the service of a third person, so that the employee becomes the servant of such third person with all the legal consequences of the new relation. Whether one who is usually the servant of one master has become specially and temporarily the servant of another is ordinarily a question of fact. If, under the circumstances only one inference can be properly drawn, the court will determine the issue, but, if reasonable men may fairly come to different conclusions respecting the inference to be drawn from the facts, the case will be one for the jury.' Hendrix v. Frisco Builders, Inc., 282 Ala. 473, 476, 213 So.2d 208, 211 (1968) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Smith, 273 Ala. 509, 142 So.2d 228 (1962)). The ultimate test in determining whether an employee has become a loaned servant is a determination of whose work the employee was doing and under whose control he was doing it. See Coleman v. Steel City Crane Rentals, Inc., 475 So.2d 498 (Ala.1985), cert. denied, Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co. v. Coleman, 476 U.S. 1104, 106 S.Ct. 1946, 90 L.Ed.2d 356 (1986). It is the reserved right of control, rather than the actual exercise of control, that furnishes the true test of the relationship. Id. Power to control determines responsibility. Martin v. Anniston Foundry Co., 259 Ala. at 637, 68 So.2d at 328. Under the particular facts of this case, if Schrimsher had had employees with the ability to operate the crane, it would not have had to secure the services of McLelland from Russo. In securing McLelland's services, Schrimsher assumed control of McLelland and directed him to perform certain acts with the crane. Therefore, Schrimsher was, for the time being, in complete charge of McLelland. Furthermore, McLelland was transferred to Schrimsher with his own consent and with Russo's consent, and he became Schrimsher's servant with all the legal consequences of the new relation. See Hendrix v. Frisco Builders, supra. The fact that McLelland was paid by Russo does not, under the circumstances in question, prevent his being an employee of Schrimsher in performing the particular task involved. Id.; Martin v. Anniston Foundry Co., supra. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, because only one inference could be properly drawn from the evidence, the trial court properly entered a judgment for Russo.