Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A borrowed servant may not recover in tort against the "regular" employees of the borrowing employer, held a Georgia appellate court. Accordingly, a state trial court erred when it refused to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employee of a borrowing employer in an action filed by a temporary worker assigned to work nearby. The appellate court found that the record clearly established that the plaintiff-temporary worker was a borrowed servant. First, the borrowing employer had complete control and direction of the servant for the occasion. Second, the lending employer had no such control. Third, the borrowing employer had the exclusive right to discharge the temporary worker. Moreover, the temporary nature of the plaintiff's employment was not a relevant factor.
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 Sprowson v. Villalobos, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Mar. 31, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.01.
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 www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.