{"id":1065,"date":"2012-08-24T10:37:00","date_gmt":"2012-08-24T14:37:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=1065"},"modified":"2012-08-24T10:52:01","modified_gmt":"2012-08-24T14:52:01","slug":"fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/","title":{"rendered":"Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 827 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1993)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Facts: <\/strong>Fitzgerald, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on the job when he fell from the top of the tanker trailer he used to deliver oil. The trailer was owned by Montgomery Tank Lines, defendant, and leased to Mobil Oil. The tractor was owned by another party, Rieger, and also leased to Mobil Oil. Plaintiff\u2019s employment situation was complex and confusing: Fitzgerald was hired to deliver oil from Mobil Oil\u2019s plant to various Mobil Oil customers. Fitzgerald was initially hired by Rieger. Before he could be hired by Riger, Fitzgerald had to pass a road test that was administered by Mobil Oil at a Mobil Oil facility. Another company, TLI, would pay Fitzgerald.\u00a0 Mobil Oil would then reimburse TLI for driver wages and other expenses, including worker\u2019s compensation insurance premiums. Mobil Oil and TLI had a contract that specifically disclaimed the existence of an employer\/employee relationship between Mobil Oil and TLI-supplied drivers.<\/p>\n

Issue: <\/strong>Whether Mobil Oil can be consider plaintiff\u2019s employer. (In this case, Fitzgerald did not want Mobil Oil to be considered his employer because it would limit his recovery to Worker\u2019s Comp under the \u201cexclusive remedy provision.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong>Mobil Oil was Fitzgerald\u2019s employer.<\/p>\n

Reasoning: <\/strong><\/p>\n

The court went through the four elements of the Economic Realities Test<\/a><\/strong> and determined that, under the totality of the circumstances, Mobil Oil was the employer of Fitzgerald (even though Mobil Oil had expressly disclaimed an employer\/employee relationship):<\/p>\n

1. Control of a worker\u2019s duties, <\/strong><\/p>\n

Fitzgerald telephoned a Mobil dispatcher at least once a day for work assignments. The Mobil dispatcher told him where to deliver oil and how much oil to deliver. In addition, Fitzgerald kept his truck at Mobil Oil\u2019s facility and hauled exclusively for Mobil Oil. However, Fitzgerald was trained by an employee of Rieger, submitted his travel logs to Rieger, refused an assignment when Rieger told him not to take it, and Riger arranged for repairs of Fitzgerald\u2019s tractor.<\/p>\n

2. Payment of wages,<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although it was indirect, Mobil Oil was liable to TLI for reimbursement of driver wages and benefit payments<\/p>\n

3. The right to hire and the right to discipline, and<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mobil Oil had the right to refuse Fitzgerald\u2019s services and if it had, Fitzgerald would have been, at least temporarily, without an assignment. The court stated that, \u201cthe power to stop Fitzgerald from engaging in the daily tasks he relied on for wages is enough to satisfy the test.\u201d<\/p>\n

4. The performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer\u2019s business towards the accomplishment of a common goal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fitzgerald\u2019s work constituted an integral part of Mobil Oil\u2019s business as delivery of oil is an ongoing and necessary function of the business.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facts: Fitzgerald, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on the job when he fell from the top of the tanker trailer he used to deliver oil. The trailer was owned by Montgomery Tank Lines, defendant, and leased to Mobil Oil. The tractor was owned by another party, Rieger, and also leased to Mobil Oil. Plaintiff\u2019s employment … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 827 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1993)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[194,193],"tags":[196,195],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nFitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 827 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1993) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation. Facts: Fitzgerald, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on the job when he fell from the top of the tanker trailer he used to deliver oil.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 827 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1993) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation. Facts: Fitzgerald, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on the job when he fell from the top of the tanker trailer he used to deliver oil.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-08-24T14:37:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-08-24T14:52:01+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/\",\"name\":\"Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 827 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Mich. 1993) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-08-24T14:37:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-24T14:52:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Fitzgerald v. Mobil Oil Corporation. Facts: Fitzgerald, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on the job when he fell from the top of the tanker trailer he used to deliver oil.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/fitzgerald-v-mobil-oil-corporation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1065"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1065"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1089,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1065\/revisions\/1089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}