Santander v. Wills Trucking Company

CP 99-000785 (D.O.L. Div. of Worker's Comp. 2001)

Opinion Date: May 4, 2001
Business Law
E-Mail

WORKERS COMPENSATION; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS—Where a trucking company controls every aspect of a tractor owner’s use of a tractor leased to the company, the tractor owner can be treated as an employee for workers compensation purposes.

A municipal waste transportation firm contracted with independent tractor owners to transport waste cargo in trailers owned by the firm. Payment was made for each load. A tractor owner, aware of the firm’s need for drivers, purchased a tractor and entered into an agreement whereby he leased his tractor to the firm for its exclusive use during the period of the lease. One morning, as he was climbing onto the tractor to check for a diesel leak, the ladder broke and he fell, breaking his arm. He was out of work for about three months, collecting on a privately-held disability insurance policy. He then returned to work, although still suffering from residual effects. While they differed in their opinions of the extent of the damage, doctors concluded that permanent damage was done to the tractor owner’s arm. The Court utilized two tests to determine whether he was an employee or an independent contractor: “(1) the ‘right to control’ test and (2) the ‘relative nature of the work’ test. ... These two tests are basically designed to draw a distinction those occupations which are properly characterized as separate enterprises and those which are in fact an integral part of the employer’s regular business.” In either test, the tractor owner was indeed found to be an employee. Under the “control” test, the Court determined that the firm directed him in every aspect of the work. Under the “relative nature of the work” test, the work for the firm was clearly an integral part of the tractor owner’s work, and without tractor owners like him, the firm would be out of business. Additionally, the contract between them provided that the tractor could be used for no other purpose than for the firm. The Court determined that he was an employee who suffered an injury on the job, and therefore worker’s compensation was due to him.

Case Law Summaries