Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – L > Loaned Servant Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Loaned Servant Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Loaned Servant.  For more information on the the employment relationship see the pages on Wikipedia.

Loaned Servant-Cases

2002 Interim Pers. of Cent. Va., Inc. v. Messer, 263 Va. 435, 559 S.E.2d 704.

Loaned servant. Motorist was injured when her vehicle was struck from rear by driver who was intoxicated and driving pick-up truck he had stolen from University Alumni Association. Defendant driver was employed by temporary staffing agency which had provided defendant driver to association. Defendant driver was working with the Alumni Association on part-time basis. While so employed, he stole vehicle from Alumni Association. At all times relevant, driver did not have valid operator’s permit. He had been convicted of DWI on two prior occasions and in January 1996, prior to this accident, was declared to be habitual offender by DMV. Driver had misrepresented his status to Interim. Interim did not do criminal background check or request copy of valid operators license or copy of DMV record. Mere proof of failure to investigate potential employee’s background is not sufficient to establish employer’s liability for negligent hiring. In this case, plaintiff failed to establish that it should have been foreseeable that driver posed threat to others for purposes of this negligent hiring claim. Driver’s employment history showed he had been model employee. Fact that he had been convicted for driving under influence and declared habitual offender would not place reasonable employer on notice that driver, while drunk, would steal association’s truck and operate it during non-business hours for his own frolic. Trial court erred in ruling that foreseeability was jury issue and in refusing to sustain motion to strike of Interim and Alumni Association.

1986 Moore v. Finney, 232 Va. 441, 350 S.E.2d 664.

There is important distinction between lending employee to another and giving orders to employee to do some work for third party. Finney in this case was person in latter category; he was under orders to fix every vehicle that came into shop at Moore & Son. Fact that he was directed by Moore & Son to fix vehicles for Moore’s Trucking does not turn him into temporary employee of Moore’s Trucking simply because work was done on Saturday instead of normal workday.

1980 Kay Mgt. Co. v. Creason, 220 Va. 820, 263 S.E.2d 394.

Loaned servant. Beard was under supervision of Kay Management supervisor. Jury issue as to agency. Issue of agency, primarily dependent on power to control. There need not be complete relinquishment of control by general employer. Both special and general employer may have some measure of control for different purposes.

1957 Kramer v. Kramer, 199 Va. 409, 100 S.E.2d 37.

Plaintiff’s decedent was employee of hoisting company that was hired by defendant general contractor to do work on job. Plaintiff’s decedent was simply working in cooperation with defendant and not under his control, therefore not loaned servant.

1954 Kitchin v. Gary Steel Corp., 196 Va. 259, 83 S.E.2d 348.

Gary’s men were on job working with Kitchin. No Gary supervisors were present. As such, these men were working for Kitchin.

1951 Coker v. Gunter, 191 Va. 747, 63 S.E.2d 15.

Defendant ran over foot of plaintiff on construction job. Defendant was loaned by his employer to special employer. Power of control is most significant element in determining employer. Several cases cited dealing with loaned servant..

1950 Southern Stevedoring Corp. v. Harris, 190 Va. 628, 58 S.E.2d 302.

Question of who plaintiff’s employer is, is normally jury question. Most significant fact in that regard is power of control. Although plaintiff actually received his paycheck from defendant, fact that plaintiff took his orders from superintendent of U.S. Lines, reported to that superintendent who had right to hire and fire him, received no instructions from defendant and would not have to obey any instructions he did receive unless consistent with those of his own supervisor, and actually represented U.S. Lines in his work are indicative that he was employee of U.S. Lines and not defendant.

1949 Tidewater Stevedoring Corp. v. McCormick, 189 Va. 158, 52 S.E.2d 61.

Criteria of loaned servant are set forth. Main factor is power of control.

1943 Arrington v. Murray, 182 Va. 1, 28 S.E.2d 19.

Claimant was employee of partnership who was directed by one partner to do some work for benefit of partner. If employee had not done work he would have been fired. Employee was held not to be loaned servant.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Loaned Servant Cases Summarized By Personal Injury Attorney

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation