Buitrago v. Rohr
1996 WL 210132, 672 So. 2d 646 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, a party is an independent contractor and not an employee when the hiring party does not control the details of the work, and other factors indicate a distinct business relationship. The hiring party is therefore not vicariously liable for the independent contractor's negligence.
Facts:
- Chuck Rohr, who owned a balloon advertising company named Canary Enterprises, Inc., entered into an agreement with Donovan Entertainment, a Blockbuster Video franchisee.
- The agreement stipulated that Rohr would provide advertising with balloons during a festival weekend in Tallahassee for a flat fee of $1,500.
- On Saturday, Rohr performed several tasks for Donovan, including participating in a hot air balloon ride and installing a cold air balloon over a Blockbuster store and later at a college baseball game.
- After completing the day's work, Rohr took the balloon down and drove back toward his motel.
- While turning into his motel's parking lot, Rohr pulled into the path of an oncoming vehicle, causing an accident that resulted in one death and two severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The representatives of the victims (plaintiffs) filed a negligence lawsuit in a Florida trial court against Chuck Rohr and Donovan Entertainment, among others.
- The claim against Donovan Entertainment was based on a theory of vicarious liability, alleging Rohr was acting as Donovan's agent or employee.
- Donovan Entertainment filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Rohr was an independent contractor, not an employee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Donovan Entertainment, dismissing it from the case.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person who contracts to provide specialized advertising services for a fixed price, using their own equipment and business, an independent contractor for whom the hiring party is not vicariously liable for torts committed while traveling from the job site?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
Yes. A person hired for a specialized job who maintains a distinct business is an independent contractor, not an employee, when the hiring entity does not control the details of the work. The court applied the 10-factor test from the Restatement (2d) of Agency § 220 to determine Rohr's status. The most significant factor is the extent of control, and here, Donovan's control was limited to telling Rohr where and when to display the balloons, not how to perform the work. Other factors also strongly indicated independent contractor status: Rohr was engaged in a distinct business (balloon advertising) different from Donovan's (video rentals), he had his own incorporated company with other clients, and he provided his own equipment. Therefore, as an independent contractor, Donovan Entertainment was not vicariously liable for Rohr's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the central importance of the 'control' test in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor for purposes of vicarious liability. It clarifies that merely directing the location and general time for performance does not constitute sufficient control to create an employer-employee relationship. The court's strong affirmation of the summary judgment also serves as guidance to trial courts, encouraging them to resolve clear-cut agency status questions before trial to promote judicial efficiency and facilitate more accurate settlement negotiations by clarifying the parties' respective legal exposure.
