An Employer's Liability for Employee's Acts Case Study
Verified
Added on 2019/09/20
|3
|1314
|314
Dissertation
AI Summary
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
STUDEBAKERV NETTIE’S FLOWER’S GARDEN, INC [Judith Studebaker was injured when a van driven by James Ferry collided with her vehicle. She brought an action against Nettie ’ s Flower Garden, Inc. (Nettie ’ s), on a respondeat superior theory in the belief that Ferry was Nettie ’ s employee at the time of the accident. Nettie ’ s defended that Ferry was an independent contractor, not an employee. From a judgment in favor of Studebaker for $125,000, Nettie ’ s appealed.] CRANDALL, P. J. … … Ferry delivered flowers for Nettie ’ s from its main shop on Grand Avenue in the City of St. Louis. Ferry was paid, not by the hour, but at a rate of $2.50 to$3.00 per delivery. If there were no deliveries, he was not paid. He delivered only in an area of St. Louis which Nettie ’ s designated as his territory. Nettie ’ s required him to make two runs each day: one in the morning at 9:30 A . M .; one in the afternoon at 1:30 P . M . When he arrived at the shop, he setup his own route based upon the location of the deliveries in his area. He generally got to work at8:00 A . M . to prepare for the morning run and at 12:00 P . M . to prepare for the afternoon run. Nettie ’ s also required Ferry to stop by its shop in downtown St. Louis at St. Louis Centre before noon each day to pick up items which needed to be transported to the Grand Avenue shop. After this stop, Ferry proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop for his afternoon run. Nettie ’ s paid Ferry $5.00 for this stop, whether or not there was anything for him to take to the Grand Avenue shop. Ferry used his own van for the deliveries; Nettie ’ s required that it be heated and air-conditioned to protect the flowers and plants. Although he did not wear a uniform, Nettie ’ s directed that Ferry be neat in appearance and that he conduct himself in a certain manner when on the job. If his behavior or appearance fell below its standards, Nettie ’ s reprimanded Ferry. Ferry paid his own expenses and received no fringe benefits from Nettie ’ s. On August 9, 1989, the date of the accident in question, Ferry made his morning run and then his mid-day stop at the downtown shop at about11:00 A . M . There was nothing for him to transport to the Grand Avenue shop. After Ferry left the downtown shop, he stopped at a pawn shop to conduct personal business. He then proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop to prepare for his afternoon run. On the way to the Grand Avenue shop, at approximately 11:45 A . M ., Ferry ’ s van collided with plaintiff ’ s automobile Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer is liable for those negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment … . Liability based on respondeat superior requires some evidence that a master-servant relationship existed between the par-ties … . The test to determine if respondeat superior applies to a tort is whether the person sought to be charged as master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act … . If there was no right to control there is no liability; for those rendering services but retaining control over their own movements are not servants … . [Judith Studebaker was injured when a van driven by James Ferry collided with her vehicle. She brought an action against Nettie ’ s Flower Garden, Inc. (Nettie ’ s), on a respondeat superior theory in the belief that Ferry was Nettie ’ s employee at the time of the accident. Nettie ’ s defended that Ferry was an independent contractor, not an employee. From a judgment in favor of Studebaker for$125,000, Nettie ’ s appealed.] CRANDALL, P. J. Ferry delivered flowers for Nettie ’ s from its main shop on Grand Avenue in the City of St. Louis. Ferry
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
was paid, not by the hour, but at a rate of $2.50 to$3.00 per delivery. If there were no deliveries, he was not paid. He delivered only in an area of St. Louis which Nettie ’ s designated as his territory. Nettie ’ s required him to make two runs each day: one in the morning at 9:30 A . M .; one in the afternoon at 1:30 P . M . When he arrived at the shop, he setup his own route based upon the location of the deliveries in his area. He generally got to work at 8:00 A . M . to prepare for the morning run and at 12:00 P . M . to prepare for the afternoon run. Nettie ’ s also required Ferry to stop by its shop in downtown St. Louis at St. Louis Centre before noon each day to pick up items which needed to be transported to the Grand Avenue shop. After this stop, Ferry proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop for his afternoon run. Nettie ’ s paid Ferry $5.00 for this stop, whether or not there was anything for him to take to the Grand Avenue shop. Ferry used his own van for the deliveries; Nettie ’ s required that it be heated and air-conditioned to protect the flowers and plants. Although he did not wear a uniform, Nettie ’ s directed that Ferry be neat in appearance and that he conduct himself in a certain manner when on the job. If his behavior or appearance fell below its standards, Nettie ’ s reprimanded Ferry. Ferry paid his own expenses and received no fringe benefits from Nettie ’ s. On August 9, 1989, the date of the accident in question, Ferry made his morning run and then his mid-day stop at the downtown shop at about 11:00 A . M . There was nothing for him to transport to the Grand Avenue shop. After Ferry left the downtown shop, he stopped at a pawn shop to con-duct personal business. He then proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop to prepare for his afternoon run. On the way to the Grand Avenue shop, at approximately 11:45 A . M ., Ferry ’ s van collided with plaintiff ’ s automobile … .Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer is liable for those negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment … . Liability based on respondeat superior requires some evidence that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties … . The test to determine if respondeat superior applies to a tort is whether the person sought to be charged as master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act … . If there was no right to control there is no liability; for those rendering ser- vices but retaining control over their own movements are not servants … . The master-