Murrell v. Goertz
597 P.2d 1223 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable for the torts of an independent contractor. The decisive test for determining if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is whether the employer has the right to control the physical details of the work, not merely the right to set general policies regarding the final result.
Facts:
- Bruce Goertz delivered the Daily Oklahoman, a newspaper published by the Oklahoma Publishing Company, to Mrs. C. L. Murrell.
- Goertz was hired as a carrier by Russell Westbrook, who was an independent newspaper distributor for the Oklahoma Publishing Company.
- The Oklahoma Publishing Company had no input in the decision to hire Goertz and was unaware of his employment.
- On August 27, 1976, while making monthly collections for Westbrook, Goertz went to Murrell's residence.
- Murrell confronted Goertz about alleged damage to her screen door caused by him throwing the newspaper.
- An argument ensued, during which Murrell slapped Goertz.
- Goertz retaliated by striking Murrell, causing injuries that required medical treatment and hospitalization.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. C. L. Murrell filed a lawsuit against Bruce Goertz and Oklahoma Publishing Company in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
- Oklahoma Publishing Company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not Goertz's employer.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Oklahoma Publishing Company.
- Murrell's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Murrell, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
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 newspaper carrier an employee of a publisher for the purposes of vicarious liability when the publisher sets general policies for delivery but does not control the carrier's day-to-day activities or physical performance of the work?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynolds, J.
No. A newspaper carrier is an independent contractor, not an employee of the publisher, when the publisher lacks the right to control the physical details of the work. The court reasoned that the decisive test is the right to control the physical details, not just the end result. Although the Oklahoma Publishing Company set general policies—such as delivery deadlines, the use of rubber bands, and a system for handling complaints—these standards did not amount to supervision, dominion, or control over Goertz's day-to-day activities. Goertz was hired by, and worked for, an independent distributor named Westbrook, not the publisher. He had no direct contact with the publisher and was collecting money for Westbrook at the time of the altercation. Therefore, because the publisher did not control the means and manner of his work, Goertz was an independent contractor, and the publisher cannot be held vicariously liable for his actions.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional 'right to control' test as the central element in distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor for purposes of vicarious liability. The decision clarifies that a principal can set quality standards and general policies for its independent contractors without creating an employment relationship, as long as it does not control the physical details or day-to-day methods of the work. This precedent is significant for businesses that use franchise or distributor models, as it helps shield them from liability for the torts of their contractors, provided they maintain a clear separation in operational control.
