Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Georgia: Right to Control, Not the Exercise of That Control, Determines Employment Relationship

March 28, 2020 (1 min read)

Where the plaintiff and her husband contracted to drive a semi-truck for a trucking company, were both subject to termination by the company, and were not free to drive for other trucking companies, there was sufficient evidence of control to characterize them as employees, and not independent contractors, held a Georgia appellate court. Accordingly, where the plaintiff sustained injuries in a vehicle crash in which her husband was the driver, her civil action against him and the trucking firm was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Georgia Act. The court stressed it was the right to control, not necessarily the actual level of control, that governed the situation.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Estes v. G&W Carriers, LLC, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 129 (Mar. 6, 2020)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 61.02.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at