You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer in this traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant driver was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee acting within the scope of employment:

… [Plaintiff] allegedly was injured when a vehicle he was operating collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Luis F. Leal. * * * The plaintiffs alleged … that Leal was [defendant] Publishers’ employee, and that Leal was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. …

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his [or her] own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule” … . “The fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … . Brielmeier v Leal, 2024 NY Slip Op 02163, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: An employer may be responsible for the negligence of an employee, but is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. The fact that the employment contract uses the term “independent contractor” is not dispositive. The relevant criteria are explained.

 

You might also like
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS STUDENT-PUSHES-STUDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
The Defendants, Lessees of the Property Abutting the Sidewalk, Demonstrated in their Summary Judgment Motion that there Was No Statute or Ordinance Imposing Liability on Lessees for Failure to Clear Snow and Ice from the Sidewalk, But the Defendants Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate They Did Not Make the Condition More Hazardous by their Snow Removal Efforts—Therefore the Summary Judgment Motion Must Be Denied Without Reference to the Answering Papers
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Board of County Legislators is Necessary Party Re: Legality of Local Law
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WAS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF HER SEX SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, LIMITED COURT REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDUCATION... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING...