Opinion ID: 1698190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: tyson foods

Text: Rita argues on appeal that Tyson Foods was not entitled to a summary judgment because, she says, Tyson had asserted control over Smith and his management practices and that control placed Tyson and Smith in a master/servant relationship and placed joint liability on Tyson for Nicholas's injury. Tyson, however, contends that Smith was an independent contractor and that it did not retain the right to control Smith's means of operations. The record contains no evidence that Tyson retained the right to control the manner in which Smith was to perform the contract. This Court has held: To recover against a defendant on the theory of respondeat superior, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish the status of master and servant and to establish that the act was done within the scope of the servant's employment. Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Braggs, 285 Ala. 396, 232 So.2d 638 (1970). For one to be an employee, the other party must retain the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the results to be accomplished, or, in other words, not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done. Id.  Jenkins v. Gadsden Times Pub. Corp., 521 So.2d 957, 958 (Ala.1988); see also Spell v. ConAgra, Inc., 547 So.2d 501, 502-03 (Ala. 1989). Because the plaintiff presented no substantial evidence to rebut Tyson's prima facie showing that it did not retain the right to control the manner in which Smith performed his contract, we affirm the summary judgment as to Tyson Foods.