Opinion ID: 1363918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Change the last sentence of section 1 (performance) to read as follows:

Text: `Contractor shall conduct all operations in contractor's own name and not in the name of, or as an agent for, Shell. The parties hereto hereby create a general and special employment relationship with respect to all labor furnished hereunder and Shell, as the special employer, hereby is given the right to fully control the details and means of doing the work hereby contracted for.' .... .... .... .... ... On November 12, 1973, Kowalski, a Peterson employee, was working on building a scaffold inside a large heater at the refinery with a crew of Peterson carpenters. While he was operating a radial saw furnished by Shell, Kowalski's hand was amputated. On February 1, 1974, Kowalski filed a complaint against Shell and other defendants seeking damages for personal injuries. Shell denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted that Kowalski was its special employee so that his exclusive remedy was under the workers' compensation law. The evidence presented at trial on the issue of special employment [1] showed that Shell closed down the various sections of the refinery on a rotating basis in order to make repairs and inspect all equipment and machinery. Each section of the refinery required such maintenance every one to two years. Each shutdown lasted from four to six weeks, with a shutdown beginning somewhere at the plant about once every six months. Shell regularly used Peterson to perform these maintenance operations. Approximately two weeks before a shutdown, Peterson's general superintendent would move into the refinery and through him we [Shell] make our wants known to Peterson. Prior to a shutdown, Shell would also prepare detailed lists of tasks to be performed by Peterson. These lists were then given to various Shell foremen, who would in turn convey the information to Peterson foremen. If Peterson employees were doing something which did not meet with Shell's approval, Shell would stop them and redirect their work. Shell could also request Peterson to remove an employee whose work Shell found unsatisfactory. However, all Peterson employees were supervised directly by Peterson foremen. Peterson provided all the tools and equipment its employees used except for the saw Kowalski was using when he was injured. Peterson also provided its employees with hard hats and badges with the Peterson insignia. Peterson employees were authorized to enter the refinery through only one of the five or six entrances available to Shell employees. At the time of the accident, Kowalski was on Peterson's payroll. He had been employed by Peterson for approximately two and a half months as a laborer and had worked at the refinery on a previous shutdown as well as on the present shutdown. [2] He was assigned to the Peterson carpentry crew and was under the direct supervision of Peterson's carpenter foreman. When he was injured, Kowalski was following the carpenter foreman's express orders. He was unaware of the contract between Shell and Peterson. Peterson's carpenter foreman testified that Shell employees never directed him or the members of his crew as to the details of their work. Rather, Shell's involvement with his crew was limited to informing him of the location and size of scaffolds that were needed. Shell's carpenter foreman testified that he had no control over and never directed Kowalski as to the details of his work. [3] He also stated that he did not know of any Shell employee who had the right to direct Kowalski in the performance of his duties. The manager of Shell's safety department testified that We didn't have no control over his [Kowalski's] work. Peterson's assistant superintendent also testified that Shell did not direct the details of Kowalski's work. There was no evidence presented to show that any Shell employee had directed the details of Kowalski's work. The jury returned a special verdict, finding that Kowalski was not Shell's special employee, that his damages were $500,000, and that he had been 15 percent negligent. [4] However, the court granted Shell's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the sole ground that Kowalski was Shell's special employee. [5] This appeal followed.