Skip to main content

Employer Liability for the Acts of Independent Contractors

Recently, a federal judge in Illinois ordered Dish Network to pay $280 million in fines for robocalls and for calling people on the Do Not Call Registry. According to news accounts, one of Dish Network's defenses was that the companies doing the illegal calling were independent contractors, and, therefore, Dish Network can't be held liable for their actions. The judge rejected this argument.

An independent contractor is different than a salaried or hourly employee, and they are treated differently under the law. Employers often hire independent contractors to do short or long-term projects. Or the independent contractors can even act like a full-time employee in everything but name.

Often, employers can be held liable for wrongful acts committed by its employees, if those acts were committed during the course of the employee doing his or her job. But usually not for the wrongful acts of independent contractors, even if they caused harm while performing work for the "employer" (not really "employer" because the independent contractor is not an employee--they are just two parties to a contract). As courts have said:
As a general rule, a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts.
Hence the beauty of the independent contractor. Like Dish Network tried to do, an employer who gets sued can say, "I'm not responsible for what they did! They were independent contractors!"

But sometimes employers can be held liable for the actions of independent contractors. Under New York law, the issue hinges on:  how much control did the "employer" have, and/or exercise, over the performance of the independent contractor's work, or the manner in which they did it? The more control the "employer" had and exercised, the more likely the independent contractor will be considered an employee.

This is true even if the actual contract between the "employer" and the independent contractor says, "You are not an employee. You are an independent contractor." Courts will say, "Yes, that's very nice, but that's not the law. The key factor is how much control did the employer have and/or exercise over the performance of the work."

As you  might suspect, this inquiry is very fact-specific, it depends on the circumstances of each case, and courts often say it is an "issue for the jury" or a "question of fact". That is, a jury has to decide the issue, a judge cannot. You see, courts can't decide "questions of fact", only "questions of law". (Unless a factual matter is so clear on the evidence in the record that it becomes a "question of law", and then they can decide it! Sounds confusing? That is a topic for another day.)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Fraud: Dog "Rescue" Operation Shut Down and Ordered to Pay Restitution

News 12 recently had a story  about a Calverton dog "rescue" operation that was shut down and ordered to repay $24,000 in restitution for "selling" sick dogs. This was a type of fraud on consumers. The allegations  were that the two women who operated Precious Pups Rescue "pulled"/obtained dogs that had health issues from in-state and out-of-state shelters, then sold the dogs to consumers by way of "adoption fees" or "donations" of $200 to $600 per dog. The owners of Precious Pups Rescue told consumers that the dogs were healthy  and had been checked out by a vet when that was not true. The new owners were then faced with thousands of dollars in vet bills: Zambito and Torrillo-Hooghkirk sold consumers dogs that they claimed were healthy, vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and evaluated by a veterinarian, when in fact, they were not. In fact, the dogs had visible signs of illness, such as coughing, scratching, matting and sores. After...
Post a Comment
Read more