Sandrock v. Taylor
174 N.W.2d 186, 1970 Neb. LEXIS 510, 185 Neb. 106 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's right of control over a worker's physical performance, not the labels in a contract, determines whether a master-servant relationship exists for purposes of respondeat superior liability. Additionally, a driver's negligence is not imputed to a passenger in a gratuitous, social context, as this does not create an agency relationship.
Facts:
- Prior to September 1961, Robert L. Taylor was an employee of Osceola County Cooperative Creamery Association (Co-op), driving a company-owned milk truck.
- Around September 19, 1961, Co-op and its drivers, including Taylor, entered into 'carrier's contracts' which designated the drivers as independent contractors.
- Under the contract, Taylor purchased his own truck, was required to deliver milk daily on Co-op's routes, and was paid a set rate per 100 pounds of milk, which Co-op subsidized to guarantee a certain income.
- The contract gave Co-op the right to revise routes, required Taylor to use a relief driver acceptable to Co-op, and allowed Co-op to terminate the contract on 30 days' written notice at any time.
- On August 2, 1963, George B. Sandrock's mower broke, and he asked his neighbor, Casper B. Meirose, for a ride to town to get the part repaired.
- Meirose agreed to give Sandrock a ride as a friendly, gratuitous favor.
- While Meirose was driving Sandrock (a passenger) north, Robert L. Taylor was driving his partially loaded milk truck west on Co-op business.
- The two vehicles collided at an uncontrolled rural intersection with views obstructed by a tall cornfield, and George B. Sandrock was killed.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as representative of George B. Sandrock's estate, filed a wrongful death action against Casper B. Meirose, Robert L. Taylor, and Osceola County Cooperative Creamery Association (Co-op) in a Nebraska trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict of $46,712 in favor of the plaintiff and against all three defendants.
- All three defendants (Meirose as appellant, Taylor as appellant, and Co-op as appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a master-servant relationship exist for purposes of respondeat superior liability when a contract designates a worker as an independent contractor, but the employing company retains substantial control over the manner of performance and the right to terminate the agreement on short notice?
Opinions:
Majority - McCown, J.
Yes. A master-servant relationship exists where the employing company retains the right of control over the worker, regardless of contractual language to the contrary. The court affirmed that the primary test is whether the employer has the right to control and supervise the physical conduct of the service. An employer cannot insulate itself from respondeat superior liability by using a contract that labels a worker an independent contractor while retaining the control benefits of an employer-employee relationship. Here, Co-op's right to terminate the contract on short notice without liability, subsidize Taylor's income, direct his deliveries, approve relief drivers, and train him indicated a level of control inconsistent with independent contractor status. The jury was therefore justified in finding that Taylor was a servant of Co-op, making Co-op liable for his negligence. The court also held that the negligence of the host driver, Meirose, was not imputed to the decedent, Sandrock, because their relationship was a gratuitous social one, not one of agency or joint enterprise where Sandrock would have a right of control.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that substance prevails over form in determining employment status. It clarifies that the 'right of control' is the dispositive factor for respondeat superior liability, and a company's ability to terminate a worker on short notice is strong evidence of that control. The case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving attempts to reclassify employees as independent contractors to avoid vicarious liability. It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize the entire working relationship, including unwritten practices, rather than relying solely on the language of a contract.
