Opinion ID: 25512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: bility for workplace negligence actions, “al-

Text: Hartfield was an employee of Manpower, though only one of them has provided an employment placement agency, which had workmen’s compensation insurance.” Honey a contract with Leaf River to supply v. United Parcel Serv., 879 F. Supp. 615, 618 employees. Under this contract, Hartfield was (S.D. Miss. 1995). Accordingly, there can be placed at Leaf River as a forklift operator and no recovery from Leaf River. reported to, and was under the direction of, Leaf River’s supervisors, similarly to III. employees hired directly by Leaf River, but he Hartfield also appeals the summary was paid by Manpower, which maintained judgment in favor of Georgia Pacific, arguing workers’ compensation insurance coverage on that he should be allowed to go to trial on the Hartfield. issues of (1) whether Georgia Pacific provided Leaf River with a defective forklift and Hartfield was injured on October 31, 1996, (2) whether the forklift was owned by Georgia when the fuel tank on the forklift he was oper- Pacific. Citing cases from other jurisdictions, ating exploded, allegedly from a defective Hartfield contends that any negligence of valve. Manpower’s workers’ compensation Georgia Pacific, as corporate grandparent of policy provided payments to Hartfield, who Leaf River, is not immunized by Manpower’s continued to work at Leaf River as a forklift provision of workers’ compensation insurance, operator for seven months. because Hartfield was borrowed by Leaf River, not Georgia Pacific. Hartfield argues