Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
350 S.E.2d 83 (N.C. 1986)


Facts

On December 1, 1983, Shane Tucker (plaintiff), an eight-year-old boy, slipped on a sidewalk owned by A.T. Williams Oil Company (A.T. Williams) (defendant) and cut his hand. Shane had been accompanying his mother, Sylvia Tucker (plaintiff), to her job as a part-time cashier at a convenience store owned by A.T. Williams. Shane frequently accompanied his mother to work and performed odd jobs around the store. In exchange, the store manager, Ken Schneiderman, would pay Shane approximately $1.00 for about 30 minutes to one hour of work. Shane had been performing odd jobs when he slipped and fell on the premises. Shane and his mother sued A.T. Williams for negligence. A.T. Williams moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Shane was an employee of A.T. Williams within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act and was therefore limited to filing a claim for workers’ compensation. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that Shane was not an employee, because Schneiderman had not complied with certain procedural formalities in hiring Shane. Specifically, Schneiderman had not required an employment application from Shane or reported Shane to A.T. Williams for withholding or workers’ compensation purposes. Schneiderman also paid Shane out of pocket, while employees were paid from the cash register. The trial court found that Shane was an employee who had been injured within the course and scope of employment and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Frye, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Martin, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.