Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc

496 Words2 Pages
se 43 Racquel Campbell Employment Law Summer 2012 Case 4: Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc In Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc Judith Studebaker was injured in a car accident cause by James Ferry's van. Studebaker brought suit against Nettie's on a Respondeat Superior theory claim that Nettie’s was liable for the accident thier employee caused. The judgment ended up being in favor of Studebaker and she was rewarded $125,000. Nettie's appealed the judgment claiming that Ferry was not a employee but an independent contractor that did runs for the stores using his own van. Also claiming that Ferry was on his personal time when the accident happen because it happened after he left a pawnshop before is afternoon run. The court denied Netties appeal because Ferry was what the court considered employed by Netties because he was required to follow certain standards and Nettie's gave him the list of deliveries he had to do. Also the accident happened while Ferry was in route to the shop for his afternoon run. The fact that he was leaving the pawnshop was irrelevant because he was on his way to Netties to do his daily duties. Since Ferry was considered employed and in route to Netties the court denied the appeal concluding that Nettie's either controlled or had the right to control the manner in which Ferry Performed the duties for which he was employed. 1. Nettie's had the right to control Ferry at the time of the collision because Ferry was performing in the scope of his employment. Ferry was downtown near the pawnshop because he was doing his daily run to the downtown shop to pick up stuff, once leaving the downtown shop he went to the pawnshop he was in route to the other shop when the accident happened. If he was not on his way tot he other shop to do his afternoon runs the accident would have never happened. 2. The fact that Ferry was

More about Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc

Open Document