Opinion ID: 1945924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imputed Negligence or Wantonness

Text: The trial court gave the following instruction to the jury: Now, Alabama Power Company contends that the plaintiff should not recover against it because Manhattan-Walton Joint Venture and its employees were not its servant, agent or employees at the time and place complained of, and was an independent contractor. It, therefore, becomes your duty to determine from the evidence whether at the time of Gary Beam's death Manhattan-Walton Joint Venture was an independent contractor.... ... If you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that Manhattan-Walton Joint Venture was not an independent contractor in the performing of the work in question, that Manhattan-Walton was the agent of Alabama Power Company, and was acting within the line and scope of its employment in the performing of the work in question, the Alabama Power Company would be liable to the plaintiff for any injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a proximate cause of any negligence or wantonness on the part of Manhattan-Walton Joint Venture, or its employees. Alabama Power argues that the reserved-right-of-control test operates only to make a premises owner liable for its own failure to provide a safe place to work, not to give rise to respondeat superior liability for the negligence or wantonness of the contractor. Alabama Power also argues that it did not defend on the basis that Manhattan-Walton was an independent contractor, so this instruction introduced a theory of liability that was not presented by the pleadings or the pre-trial order, nor tried by consent. During arguments over whether the trial court should give this requested instruction, the court dismissed Alabama Power's argument, noting that we have tried this case on control and independent contractor sixty percent of the time. We agree that Alabama Power's attempt to distinguish between the premises owner/general contractor question of duty to provide a safe place to work and the general contractor/independent subcontractor question of master-servant liability does not provide a ground for refusing to give the instruction in the circumstances of this case. There was ample evidence regarding the number of Alabama Power employees on the site and the pervasive nature of their responsibilities for the jury to find Alabama Power liable. Because Alabama Power was so extensively directing M-W's employees, providing a safe place to work includes exercising authority to discourage negligence. The extensive control which Alabama Power retained over M-W rose to such a level that the imputation to Alabama Power of M-W's employees' negligence or wantonness is quite in accord with the principles of respondeat superior liability. The acts of an agent are attributable to the master because the master has instructed the agent what to do and set him to the master's business. With Alabama Power contracting for M-W to work according to Alabama Power's practices and procedures and undertaking to provide safety instruction to M-W employees, we find no merit to Alabama Power's objection to the above-quoted instructions. Alabama Power also makes the argument that if M-W employees are to be regarded as its servants for respondeat superior purposes, they should also be regarded as its employees for purposes of the workmen's compensation act's ban on suits by covered employees against their employers. Code 1975, §§ 25-5-52 and -53. This argument fails because the definitions of employer and employee in the workmen's compensation act are statutory and are not met in this case. Under Code 1975, § 25-5-1(4), an employer is one who employs another to perform a service for hire and pays wages directly to such person. M-W paid Beam's wages. Under subsection (6), an employee is one in the service of another under any contract of hire. Beam's contract of employment was with M-W. Under similar circumstances, this Court reversed a summary judgment for an owner/general contractor on the basis of the exclusivity provisions of the workmen's compensation act, because the plaintiff was an employee of the subcontractor. Kilgore v. C.G. Canter, Jr. & Associates, 396 So.2d 60 (Ala.1981). In that case, the general contractor provided plaintiff's workmen's compensation coverage, and yet the Court held that, if plaintiff was indeed an employee of the subcontractor, his suit against the general contractor would not be barred. This result is even more appropriate here, because M-W paid Beam's workmen's compensation.