Case Study
Studebaker v. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc.
April 5, 2015
Summary:
Judith Studebaker filed suit against Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc. (Studebaker v. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc) after being injured in an accident on August 9, 1989. A van driven by James Ferry, collided with her vehicle. When the case went to court, the jury found Nettie’s Flowers responsible for Studebaker’s injuries, and awarded her $125,000. (Twomey, 2015, p 620). Ferry’s job at Nettie’s wa delivering flowers for the company, but, when the case was heard Nettie’s claimed that James Ferry was an independent contractor (Twomey, 2015, p 621), and paid Ferry based on the number of deliveries made instead of how many hours actually worked. Ferry used his own personal van for deliveries, and Nettie’s Flowers requested Ferry equip his van with air-conditioning and heat to protect the plants. Ferry was responsible for delivering in his assigned territory. Although, Nettie’s did not supply Ferry with a company uniform he was expected to have a neat appearance, and conduct himself in a professional manner while on the job. (Twomey, 2015, p 620). On the date of the accident, Ferry made a mid-day stop downtown, and, then ran by a pawn shop to handle some personal business. Shortly after leaving the pawn shop, and heading to do his afternoon run Ferry collided with Studebaker’s vehicle. After leaving the pawn shop, and headed to do his afternoon run, Ferry’s van collided with Studebaker’s vehicle. (Twomey, 2015, p 620). According to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for negligent acts of an employee within the course of employment. (Twomey, 2015, p 619). However, the owners of Nettie’s Flowers disagreed with the court’s finding, and, counter-argued at the time of the accident, Ferry was not driving his van to service Nettie’s business interest, but, instead was conducting his own personal business, and was on his own time. (Twomey, 2015, p 620). The jury found sufficient evidence to determine at the time of the collision, Ferry was engaged in conducting Nettie’s business interests, and was acting within the scope of his employment, and Nettie’s initial claim was denied. In their second point, Nettie’s further contended they had no control over Ferry or his vehicle at the time of the accident. (Twomey, 2015, p 621). Based on the evidence, the jury dismissed Nettie’s second claim. In closing, Ferry used his own vehicle as a means of transportation, but, Nettie’s required that he have a vehicle to carry out his job duties, required the vehicle to be equipped with a good heating and cooling system, and set standards for Ferry’s dress and conduct while on the job, and monitored his compliance. Finally, Nettie’s provided Ferry with an assigned territory, and a list of clients to service, and paid Ferry for his morning stops, and always paid him for the afternoon stop whether he transported anything or not. (Twomey, 2015, p 621).
1. Did Nettie’s control or have the right to control Ferry at the time of the collision? Yes. On the date of the collision, Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc., had control of James per the “respondeat superior” theory. When examining the evidence the courts determined Nettie’s Flowers had sufficient control over James Ferry. When the collision happened, Nettie’s had a set of standards for Ferry’s conduct on the job, as well as a dress code while working. In addition, Nettie’s required that Ferry’s vehicle have an operational heating and air conditioning system to protect the plants when being transported. Also, Ferry was paid to make stops in his territory assigned by Nettie’s. (Twomey, 2015, p 621). In reviewing the “respondeat superior” doctrine, when an employee commits negligent acts within the scope of his employment, the employer is held liable for damages. (Twomey, 2015, p 619).
2. Is not the fact that Ferry, just prior to the accident, had gone to a pawn shop compelling evidence that he was using his van exclusively for his independent purposes and was not acting within the course of his employer’s business? Ferry’s slight detour prior to the accident to conduct personal business did not mean that he was using his van exclusively for his independent purposes. The object of Ferry’s trip was to go to the Pawn Shop, but, at the time of the collision Ferry was conducting Nettie’s business because he was returning to the Grand Avenue Shop after making his routine mid-day stop at the downtown shop. Ferry’s stop at the pawn shop was encompassed within his daily routine of stops and it would be difficult to separate it from his morning and afternoon runs. (Twomey, 2015, pp 620-621).
3. Give your opinion on the ethics of businesses converting employees to independent contractors to reduce or eliminate costs, such as health and retirement benefits, vacations, overtime, and maintenance and proper insurance of motor vehicles. Those businesses should be incur the maximum penalty possible from the government. It is unfair to the employee that is being converted to an independent contractor, and, an injustice to their families, and to those businesses who operate within the law. Millions of people in country rely on the health and retirement benefits to take care of their families, and, the retirement benefits are crucial in those later years. I have a lot of friends and family members who are voluntarily operate as independent contractors, which often comes with a hefty price tag. The price of liability insurance, medical and dental insurances are very expensive for these individuals, and sometimes even forces them stop operating as an Independent Contractor, and go to work for an actual company to afford benefits for themselves and their families. The Federal Government should continue enforcing the toughest penalties for employers purposely misclassifying employees.