Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden Inc

Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc.

Edward Garza

Professor LJ Hansen-Brown JD, MBA

Webster University

Abstract

Studebaker v. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc. is a respondent superior case in which

Judith Studebaker was injured when a van driven by James Ferry collided with her

vehicle. She brought an action against Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc.  Nettie’s on a

respondeat superior theory in the belief that Ferry was Nettie’s employee at the time of

the accident.  Nettie’s defended that Ferry was an independent contractor, not an

employee. Nettie contends that there was no substantial evidence that Nettie’s controlled

or had the right to control Ferry at the time of the collision. Nettie’s either controlled or

had the right to control the manner in which Ferry performed the duties for which he was

employed.  Jury found favor of Studebaker for $125,000, Nettie’s appealed.  

STUDEBAKER V. NETTIE’S FLOWER GARDEN, INC.

Case Questions

1. Did Nettie’s control or has the right to control Ferry at the time of the collision?

Yes, The time of the accident, Nettie’s controlled the tort-feasor. Court has

determined that sufficient control had been exercised over Ferry by the employers, including the fact that Nettie’s set standards for Ferry’s conduct and dress while on the job determined his territory, required his van to have heat and air and paid him to make the stops (Twomney, 2013, p.620).

2. Is not the fact that Ferry, just prior to the accident, had gone to a pawnshop 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? Yes Ferry did stop at a pawnshop using his own van, but that day he made his morning run and then his mid-day stop at the downtown shop at about 11:00 a.m. There was nothing for him to transport to the Grand Avenue shop. After Ferry left the downtown shop, he stopped at the pawnshop to conduct personal business.  Then he proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop to prepare for his afternoon run. Ferry was still working within his scope of employment, it’s like if he went to the pawnshop on a lunch break. Ferry was clearly working within the employer’s capacity, because he then left for the afternoon run. This does not clear Ferry what so ever (Twomney, 2013,p.620).  The principal factors to be considered in determining whether a person is an independent contractor are set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency Section 220(2) (1958) as follows:

(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the

details of the work;

(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;

(c) the kind of occupation with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually

done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;

(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;

(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the

place of work for the person doing the work;

(f) the length of time for which the person is employed;

(g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;

(h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer;

(i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of master and

servant; and

(j) whether the principal is or is not in business

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.