English v. Lehigh County Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the worker made a contract of hire, because the worker submitting himself to the control and supervision of the special employer demonstrates consent to employment
• holding that in making such a determination, “any discrepancies in the facts would be for a jury to resolve”
• holding that worker was an employee of the government entity to which he was assigned because the government entity directed how the work was to be performed and there were no supervisory personnel from employer at the government entity’s facilities
• recognizing the distinction between the “statutory employer doctrine” and the “borrowed servant doctrine”
• noting liability under Restatement § 311 “is predicated on the transmission of false information” and “may arise where even if a person did not have a duty to inform, he nevertheless did inform, and in doing so, transmitted false information”
• employer-employee relationship existed between Kelly Labor Services employee and company to which worker is assigned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).