Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for William Day in a negligence and vicarious-liability action arising from an injury caused by Joe Hendershot during farm maintenance work. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Agency’s ten-factor test, the court held that the undisputed facts established Hendershot was an independent contractor rather than Day’s employee. Because principals are generally not liable for the negligence of independent contractors, Day was not liable for Moberly’s injury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that Hendershot was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Day.
- Whether Day could be held vicariously liable for Hendershot's alleged negligence if Hendershot was an independent contractor.
- Whether summary judgment was proper under Indiana Trial Rule 56.
Holdings
- When the significant underlying facts are undisputed, a court may determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor as a matter of law.
- The undisputed facts, considered under the ten-factor Restatement test, established that Hendershot was an independent contractor.
- Day was not vicariously liable because Hendershot was an independent contractor, and the general rule is that a principal is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
Key quotations
“Summary judgment requires evidence that leaves no genuine issues of material fact, so that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (1009)
“Taken as a whole, then, the undisputed facts support the trial court's conclusion that Hendershot was an independent contractor.” (1013)
“Consequently, Day is not liable for Moberly's injury, and the trial court did not err in granting Day's motion for summary judgment.” (1013)
Factual background
William Day owned and operated a farm but became unable to perform farm work after suffering meningitis. His sons-in-law, Jay Moberly and Joe Hendershot, periodically helped him with farm tasks, and Day paid them amounts he considered fair after the work was completed. On June 28, 1997, Day asked them to repair drainage tile; Hendershot supplied and operated a backhoe, and Moberly was seriously injured when the backhoe's boom activated as he tried to climb onto it. Moberly claimed Hendershot was Day's employee and that Day was vicariously liable for Hendershot's negligence.
Procedural history
Jay Moberly sued William Day after Moberly was injured while performing drainage-tile repair with Joe Hendershot, alleging that Hendershot was Day's employee and that Day was vicariously liable for Hendershot's negligence. The trial court granted Day summary judgment on the ground that Hendershot was an independent contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that employee-versus-independent-contractor status presented genuine issues of material fact. The Supreme Court granted transfer and held that the undisputed facts established Hendershot's independent-contractor status as a matter of law.