|
No. 126534
| Ricky Reed, |
|
Larry A. Smith |
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Baxter, W.) |
|
|
| Linda Susan Yackell, |
|
|
Defendant and Cross-Defendant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Buddy Lee Hadley, Gerald Michael |
|
Hal O. Carroll |
| Herskovitz and Mr. Food, Inc., |
|
|
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, |
|
|
Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants. |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Cross-Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Workers' Compensation Section of the State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Mr. Food, a retail marketer of meat products, employed Buddy Lee Hadley. On December 10, 1998, Hadley was driving Mr. Food's cargo van, making deliveries. Ricky Reed was also in the van. Reed had been fired by Mr. Food five months earlier, but he occasionally helped with deliveries in exchange for receiving cash under the table. Another vehicle driven by Linda Susan Yackell went through a red light and collided with the Mr. Food van. Reed was injured; he sued Yackell, Hadley, Mr. Food, and Gerald Herskovitz, the owner of Mr. Food. The jury returned a unanimous verdict and awarded Reed $1,256,320; the jury found Yackell 60 percent at fault and the other defendants 40 percent at fault. Yackell did not appeal but the other defendants challenged the jury verdict, arguing that Reed was an "employee" of Mr. Food and therefore barred from bringing a tort suit by the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA. The trial court did not agree, concluding that Reed was an independent contractor and was therefore eligible to bring a tort suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court vacated that court's decision and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of additional issues. On remand, the trial court again concluded that Reed could pursue a tort claim against defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
