Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda
506 So. 2d 1061, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 935 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A worker is an independent contractor, not an employee for purposes of vicarious liability, when the hiring party controls only the result of the work and not the means or manner of its performance. The determination is based on a multi-factor analysis, with the right of control over the details of the work being the most significant factor.
Facts:
- Kane Furniture Corporation (Kane), a furniture and carpet retailer, sold its carpet installation business to Joseph P. Perrone in 1975.
- For ten years, Perrone served as the principal carpet installer for Kane's St. Petersburg store, operating from a small work area provided by Kane.
- Perrone hired other independent installers, such as Kraus, to complete jobs he could not perform himself.
- On August 6, 1983, Perrone assigned two installation jobs from Kane to Kraus.
- After completing the jobs around noon, Kraus and his helper went to a bar in Kraus's truck and drank for approximately four hours.
- Following their time at the bar, Kraus attempted to drive his helper to Kane's parking lot to retrieve the helper's car.
- While driving, Kraus ran a stop sign at high speed and collided with a vehicle driven by Dr. Romulo Miranda, causing the death of his wife, Zenaida Quintos-Miranda.
Procedural Posture:
- Romulo Miranda, as personal representative of his wife's estate, filed a wrongful death action in a Florida trial court against Kane Furniture Corporation and Joseph P. Perrone.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Miranda, finding as a matter of law that Perrone was Kane's employee and Kraus was Kane's subemployee.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of whether Kraus was acting within the scope of his employment.
- The jury returned a verdict for Miranda, finding Kraus was acting within the scope of employment and awarding $2.3 million in damages.
- Kane Furniture Corporation (appellant) appealed the summary judgment and the jury verdict to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District (appellee Miranda).
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 carpet installer an employee of a furniture store for purposes of vicarious liability when the installer operates a distinct business, supplies his own tools and transportation, is paid by the job, and retains control over the method of performing the work?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryder, J.
No. A carpet installer is an independent contractor, not an employee, when the hiring entity does not control the means and methods of the work. Applying the ten-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220, the court concluded that Perrone and Kraus were independent contractors. The most important factor, the extent of control, weighed heavily in favor of independent contractor status, as Kane only controlled the result (a properly installed carpet) but had no control over the physical performance or details of the installation. Other factors supporting this conclusion included that the installers ran their own distinct businesses, were skilled specialists who worked without supervision, supplied their own tools and vehicles, were paid by the job rather than by time, and the parties themselves believed they were creating an independent contractor relationship, as evidenced by tax filings and the absence of employee benefits. Even if Kraus were an employee, Kane would not be liable because Kraus's actions—drinking at a bar for four hours—constituted a clear deviation from the scope of employment, and his subsequent act of driving his helper back to the parking lot did not constitute a return to employment as it did not serve Kane's business interests.
Analysis:
This case provides a classic application and affirmation of the Restatement's multi-factor test for determining employee versus independent contractor status. It solidifies the principle that the right of control over the manner and means of the work, not just the ultimate result, is the dispositive factor in the analysis. The decision limits the scope of vicarious liability for companies that utilize skilled, specialized contractors, even when those services are integral to the company's business offerings. This precedent is crucial for businesses in the gig economy and other industries that rely heavily on contract labor, as it helps define the boundaries of their potential tort liability.
