Triple D Trucking, Inc. v. American Petroleum Equipment & Construction, Inc. , 2003 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 356 ( 2003 )

THOMPSON, Judge,

concurring in the result.

I agree with the main opinion that the summary judgment in favor of APEC is due to be reversed because I conclude that the issue whether Triple D is a general contractor or a motor-vehicle contract carrier is, in this case, a factual question. However, because Triple D’s status is a factual question, I believe it is the job of the trial court, and not this court, to resolve that issue.