Frankie and Trena Gibbs and Joel and Madeira Glenn were members of the Creek Baptist Church. On Saturday, May 31, 2008, the Gatlin Creek Baptist Church, which both couples had attended, held a fundraiser whereby volunteers from the church helped others with yardwork and other small jobs in exchange for monetary contributions to the church youth ministry. Frankie Gibbs (hereinafter Gibbs), who had no experience using a chainsaw, recalled that Joel Glenn (hereinafter Glenn) had “done chainsaw work with the Georgia Disaster Relief, so he asked Glenn whether he would be interested in trimming some limbs on his property. Gibbs claims that he and Glenn had not discussed any details at the time, however, and that he (Gibbs) had forgotten that he had asked Glenn about trimming the limbs until the week of the fundraiser. That week, he had seen Glenn, and Glenn asked him whether he still wanted some limbs trimmed. According to Gibbs, Glenn said that Saturday he would “have … boys from the youth group,” and he could trim the limbs if Gibbs still wanted them trimmed. Gibbs accepted the offer, understanding that the work was being performed in exchange for a monetary donation to the youth ministry.
On Friday, Glenn went to the Gibbses’ home and Gibbs showed Glenn which limbs he wanted trimmed. The next morning (Saturday), Glenn went back to the Gibbses’ home with his own chainsaw and ladder, and with two youths from the church. He proceeded to trim the biggest limb Gibbs wanted trimmed. According to Gibbs, Glenn climbed the ladder and began cutting the limb with the chainsaw, and the chainsaw became lodged in the tree. Gibbs commented, “Joel, you done messed up now … the saw has gotten jammed.” Gibbs retrieved a pitchfork, which he used to lift the limb to dislodge the chainsaw from the tree. Afterward, Gibbs turned around and walked away to a shed to put away the pitchfork. Glenn resumed trimming the limb. As Gibbs turned back around, he saw the tree limb “flying off” and Glenn falling head first to the ground.
Glenn was taken to a hospital by ambulance. He never regained consciousness and died four days later. On May 28, 2010, Madeira Glenn filed a complaint against the Gibbses for damages she alleged were the “direct, substantial and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions by [the Gibbses] resulting in injuries to Joel Lewis Glenn on May 31, 2008, at the home of [the Gibbses].” The Gibbses asserted that Glenn was an independent contractor, tasked with a duty of his own to make certain his work area was safe, take all necessary precautions, and exercise ordinary care for his own safety. Madeira Glenn contends that the trial court erred in its order granting summary judgment to the Gibbses by holding that Glenn was an independent contractor, finding that Glenn possessed superior knowledge and proficiency to that of Gibbs.
CHIEF JUDGE PHIPPS We first address Madeira Glenn’s contention that the trial court erred by holding that Glenn was an independent contractor. She claims that Glenn was an invitee, and that by ruling that he was an independent contractor, the trial court placed a higher burden on Glenn, as an independent contractor is expected to determine for himself whether his place of employment is safe or unsafe. Madeira Glenn argues that the general rule regarding the duty owed to an invitee was applicable to this case.

(a) In support of her argument that Glenn was an invitee and not an independent contractor, Madeira Glenn points out that the evidence showed that Glenn was a volunteer, that he was solicited by Gibbs, that he never received any payment for the work performed, that there is a question as to whether the Gibbses made a donation to the church for the work performed, and that Glenn did not receive any benefit from trimming the tree. These facts, she argues, show that Glenn was working at the direction of and for the benefit of the Gibbses, and was, thus, not an independent contractor. We disagree.
The test for determining whether a person employed is an employee or an independent contractor is whether the employer, under the contract, whether oral or written, has the right to direct the time, the manner, the methods, and the means of the execution of the work, as contradistinguished from the right to insist upon the contractor producing results according to the contract, or whether the contractor in the performance of the work contracted for is free from any control by the employer of the time, manner, and method in the performance of the work.
Where one is employed generally to perform certain services for another, and there is no specific contract to do a certain piece of work according to specifications for a stipulated sum, it is inferable that the employer has retained the right to control the manner, method and means of the performance of the contract, and that the employee is not an independent contractor.
After Gibbs had approached Glenn and asked him to trim limbs on his property, Glenn, two months later, offered to trim the limbs on one particular Saturday.
Glenn decided what time he would trim the limbs that day. Glenn decided where to place the ladder, and never asked for Gibbs’s assistance in operating the chainsaw. Gibbs had no training or experience in operating a chainsaw and did not direct Glenn in the use of the chainsaw or in positioning the ladder. Gibbs did not tell Glenn how to cut the limbs. Glenn brought his own chainsaw and ladder to trim the limbs. Aside from assisting in dislodging the chainsaw from the tree, Gibbs merely pointed out to Glenn which limbs he wanted trimmed.
The evidence showed that Glenn decided when he would trim the limbs, and the manner, method, and means of trimming the limbs; there was no evidence that Gibbs retained the right to control these factors. Under the test provided above, the evidence demanded a finding that Glenn was an independent contractor.
CRITICAL THINKING:
Suggest some possible facts that would have altered this decision. What knowledge or behavior would have caused the court to rule that Glenn was not an independent contractor?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
By making the argument that she makes, what values is the defendant emphasizing?