Question

Moran Perry was walking in an intersection with the right of way when he was struck and injured by a dump truck driven by William Johnson. Perry filed a suit in a Maryland state court against Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc. (ACS) to recover for the injuries, alleging that Johnson was ACS’s employee. The defendant claimed that Johnson was an independent contractor. A jury agreed with Perry and awarded damages. Why would Asphalt & Concrete want to avoid liability for Perry’s injuries and what would be their claim?

Answer 1

• Asphalt & Concrete would want to avoid liability for Perry's injuries because of the cost. It is likely, of course, that Asphalt & Concrete has insurance that would cover the expense directly but its premiums could be increased or its coverage might be canceled in the wake of too many claims. • It may be that this concern is a significant reason for the employer-independent contractor relationship in the facts of this case in the first place.

Employer Liability • Determining whether the worker is an employee or an independent contract affects liability of Principal/Employer. - Tax Liability: Employer liable if employee. - Contract Liability: Employer not necessarily liable. - Tort Liability: Employer liable for torts of employee within scope of employment.

• The evidence on which the jury could base a finding of Johnson's status as ACS's employee included that the employer directed him to drive to a certain quarry, pick up certain materials, and bring those materials to a specific job site. • If Johnson was not prompt, ACS could dock his pay- which was hourly-or discharge him. And “at the job site, Mr. Johnson was obligated to follow ACS's directions in terms of where to drop the materials, how much material to drop, and how many times he would need to return to the quarry."