Wright v. Kelleher
22 Mass. L. Rptr. 466 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A genuine issue of material fact regarding a company's right to control the details of a worker's performance precludes summary judgment on the issue of whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor for the purposes of vicarious liability.
Facts:
- David Kelleher previously worked as a unionized shipping clerk for Entenmann's, receiving employee benefits and daily supervision.
- In June 2001, Kelleher purchased a distributorship from George Weston Bakeries Distribution, Inc. (GWBD) to distribute Arnold Foods brand products.
- Kelleher executed a Distribution Agreement that explicitly defined him as an independent contractor, after which he lost all employee benefits and formed his own business, Kelleher Distribution.
- The defendants provided Kelleher with a wireless computer to transmit sales data, billed his customers directly, and credited him with commissions from those sales.
- Kelleher asserts that GWBD negotiated delivery times, store shelf space, and product prices directly with the chain stores on his route.
- Kelleher also claims a supervisor from the defendants instructed him not to deliver any products other than those from Arnold Foods, contrary to the terms of his agreement.
- Kelleher leased a specific type of step-van for his business from B&G, a company he claims the defendants recommended.
- On December 15, 2001, while operating his delivery van after consuming alcohol, Kelleher caused a head-on collision that resulted in the death of Kenneth E. Wright.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlotta Wright, on behalf of the estate of Kenneth E. Wright, filed a wrongful death action against David Kelleher and several corporate defendants, including GWBD, George Weston, and Arnold Foods, in the Massachusetts Superior Court.
- Defendants GWBD, George Weston, and Arnold Foods filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing they could not be held vicariously liable for Kelleher's actions because he was an independent contractor.
- The plaintiff and co-defendant Kelleher filed oppositions to the defendants' motion.
- The Superior Court is considering the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 summary judgment for the defendant bakery companies appropriate on the issue of vicarious liability when there are factual disputes as to whether they exercised sufficient control over a delivery driver to render him an employee rather than an independent contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Fecteau, Francis R., J.
No. Summary judgment is inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendants' right to control Kelleher's work, which is the determinative factor in establishing a master-servant relationship for vicarious liability. The court found that despite a contract labeling Kelleher an independent contractor, numerous factual disputes call this classification into question. Key disputes include whether Kelleher truly had title to the products he sold and could sell competing brands; whether he could set his own schedule or if delivery times and prices were dictated by the defendants' direct negotiations with retailers; the extent of the training he received from the defendants' personnel; and whether he could genuinely hire others to operate his route. Because these facts are material to the central legal question of the defendants' 'right to control' Kelleher, the issue cannot be decided as a matter of law and must be resolved by a jury.
Analysis:
This case illustrates that a contractual designation of a worker as an 'independent contractor' is not dispositive in a vicarious liability analysis. Courts will scrutinize the 'right to control' by examining the practical realities of the working relationship. The decision demonstrates that multiple, seemingly minor, indicia of control can collectively create a genuine issue of material fact, making summary judgment for the employer difficult to obtain. This precedent reinforces that the employee versus independent contractor determination is a highly fact-intensive inquiry, often requiring a full trial to resolve conflicting evidence about the degree of control exercised by the principal.
