ATS, Inc. v. Beddingfield
Alabama Supreme Court
878 So. 2d 1131 (2003)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Mercer Trucking, Inc. (Mercer) (defendant) entered into an employee-leaseback contract with ATS, Inc. (defendant). Under this contract, ATS, as the general employer, handled all payroll and benefit matters for, and technically employed, all Mercer’s workers. Mercer, as the borrowing employer, received the benefit of the services performed by its workers, who continued at their current jobs under Mercer’s supervision and control. ATS never exercised its technical power to hire and fire Mercer’s workers but instead left all hiring and firing decisions to Mercer. ATS conducted training sessions for Mercer’s workers, but Mercer controlled the content of that training. ATS issued Mercer’s policy manual, but Mercer controlled the content of that manual and enforced its own policies. Roger Walker (defendant) drove a truck for Mercer. While carrying out Mercer’s instructions to deliver a truckload of goods, Walker collided with a minivan, killing its occupants. As instructed by his policy manual, Walker notified Mercer, not ATS, of the accident. Glenn Beddingfield and other personal representatives (plaintiffs) of the crash victims sued Walker, Mercer, and ATS. The trial court denied ATS’s motion for a judgment in its favor as a matter of law. The jury found both Mercer and ATS vicariously liable for Walker’s negligence. ATS appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (See, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.