Wicklund v. North Star Timber Co.
287 N.W. 7, 1939 Minn. LEXIS 806, 205 Minn. 595 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer-employee relationship exists when the employer retains the right to control the means and details of the work's performance, not just the final result, making the employer vicariously liable for the employee's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Facts:
- North Star Timber Company (defendant) hired both the plaintiff and a man named Ashlock to haul logs using their own trucks.
- Both men signed identical written contracts that described them as 'contractors' but required them to work 'under the direction of the company's foreman.'
- The contract stipulated that the company would designate hauling locations and direct where to spot the loads.
- The contract also required the haulers to work a minimum of 20 hours per day if the company required it.
- The hauling was done exclusively on the company's privately owned haul-roads.
- While hauling logs, Ashlock negligently allowed a loaded sleigh to get away from him and run down a hill.
- The runaway sleigh collided with and demolished the plaintiff's truck, which was being operated by the plaintiff's substitute driver, Erickson.
- At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was off-duty and sleeping in the company's bunkhouse.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued North Star Timber Company and its alleged servant, Ashlock, in a trial court to recover for property damage.
- The trial court dismissed the action as to Ashlock.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against the North Star Timber Company.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- Defendant North Star Timber Company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 company vicariously liable for the negligence of a worker, designated as a 'contractor' by contract, when the company retains the right to control the specific details, means, and methods of the worker's performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, Justice.
Yes, a company is vicariously liable for a worker's negligence when it retains the right to control the performance of their work. The key determinant of an employment relationship is the right of control. Here, despite the contract labeling Ashlock a 'contractor,' the defendant retained extensive control over the details of his work, including when and where to haul, the routes to use, the minimum hours of work, and general supervision by a foreman. This control over the 'means' by which the work was accomplished, rather than just the 'result,' established an employer-employee relationship. Because Ashlock was an employee acting within the scope of his employment, the defendant is liable for his negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The fellow servant doctrine does not apply to the plaintiff, as he was off-duty at the time of the accident and his truck was subject to a bailment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the substance of the working relationship, specifically the 'right of control,' overrides contractual labels like 'independent contractor' when determining vicarious liability. The court's detailed analysis of the contract demonstrates that specific clauses dictating the means and methods of work are critical evidence of an employment relationship. This case serves as a clear precedent that employers cannot shield themselves from liability simply by labeling workers as independent contractors if they, in fact, exert detailed control over their performance. The ruling also clarifies how bailment principles can apply in an employment context, allowing an employee whose property is damaged by a co-worker to recover from the employer when the property owner is not acting as a servant at the time of the incident.
