Opinion ID: 1262166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment for ALC

Text: The critical issue is who had control of Harry Hutson, the crane operator, at the time of the accident. If Hutson was controlled by BorTunCo, ALC would not be liable for his acts of negligence; however, if ALC controlled Hutson, liability would follow on the basis of respondent superior . We conclude a factual issue existed as to the control of Hutson. At the time of the accident, Hutson was on the payroll of ALC, and was associated with BorTunCo by virtue of a lease arrangement with ALC. He was supervised by an ALC employee who occasionally visited him at the job site, and also received general instructions from an employee of BorTunCo. Hutson stated he had been employed by ALC for three months and considered himself in its employ at the time of the accident. Subsequently, Hutson was put on the payroll at BorTunCo. Recently, in Parker, Administratrix v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., et al. , S.C. 239 S.E. (2d) 487, 489, this Court stated in regard to a loaned employee: While it is clear an employer may lend his employee to another so as to be relieved from liability for an injury caused by the negligence of the employee in performing work for the other..., it is equally true that an employer may direct his employee to go upon the premises of another and perform work there under the general supervision of the other person without severing the employment relation between the employer and the employee. See also Lewis v. Barnhill , 267 N.C. 457, 148 S.E. (2d) 536 (1966). Whether ALC or BorTunCo controlled the crane operator was a jury issue. We reverse that portion of the trial court's order granting summary judgment to ALC and remand for trial. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. LEWIS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur.