Robby Sebacher v Midland Paper Company
Release date: Oct 13, 2020
Venue: Eastern District
Plot Summary: Court of appeals affirms dismissal of negligence claim on defense that defendant Midland is a statutory employee.
ED 108615
Cast
Gardner, Hon.
Discussion:
Midland employee allegedly assault Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued in negligence claim. Midland runs a series of warehouses who contract out independent contractors to deliver Midland products. In this case, the contractor was CRH Transportation. Plaintiff was employed by CRH pursuant to Midland contract. Midland handled supervision and training daily of drivers and required 40 hour minimum. Plaintiff was assaulted by Midland employee and sued Midland for failure to train and supervise assailant.
The issue was whether plaintiff was performing work within the usual course of Midland's business. Plaintiff alleged the determination of the usual business is based on the specific location and in this case the usual business at that location did not include delivery because it never used its own employees at that location. Plaintiff did not contest the statement in the motion that the defendant had multiple options of delivery including contacting with transportation companies.
The court found the fact that deliveries were used by independent employees rather than its own employees at that location did not change the usual business at the warehouse. It found picking up products from a distributor to deliver them for the distributor was the usual business.
