Cloverleaf Express v. Fouts
Arkansas Court of Appeals
91 Ark. App. 4, 207 S.W.3d 576 (2005)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Lyle Fouts (plaintiff) worked for Cloverleaf Express (Cloverleaf) (defendant) as a truck driver. Cloverleaf’s business involved transporting goods by tractor-trailer, primarily for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart). Cloverleaf owned two trucks, one of which Fouts drove. Cloverleaf paid for the truck’s maintenance, repairs, and fuel. At Cloverleaf’s request, Fouts signed a certificate of noncoverage, which meant that Cloverleaf did not pay workers’-compensation premiums for Fouts. Cloverleaf did, however, pay workers’-compensation premiums on the employee who drove the other company-owned truck. Fouts was paid by the job, not by the hour, and Cloverleaf did not withhold taxes from Fouts’s paychecks. Cloverleaf instructed Fouts as to when he should pick up a load from Wal-Mart, and Fouts could not hold another job because he was required to be available when called by Cloverleaf. Fouts died suddenly when he suffered a cardiac event while helping to lift a conveyor line at a Wal-Mart facility that had fallen when Fouts drove his truck away from the line. Arguing that Fouts was an independent contractor, Cloverleaf denied a claim for workers’ compensation filed on Fouts’s behalf. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that Fouts failed to prove that he was Cloverleaf’s employee at the time of the injury. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) reversed the ALJ’s decision, and on remand, Fouts prevailed. Cloverleaf then appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gladwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.