 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LANFORD v. CITY OF SHEFFIELD1/17/1997
as follows: "The terms include every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens and also including minors who are legally permitted to work under the laws of this state, and also including all employees of Tannehill Furnace and Foundry Commission."
Under the interpretation of these definitions given by our Supreme Court in Downey, we conclude that Lanford was not an employee of the City who was directly paid wages under a contract for hire. We note that other jurisdictions have focused on whether there is a true employment relationship between prisoner and correctional facility to reach a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Porter v. Dept. of Corrections, 876 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. App. 1994); Keeney v. Industrial Comm'n., 24 Ariz. App. 3, 535 P.2d 31 (1975). Accordingly, the summary judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
YATES, MONROE, and CRAWLEY, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|