Coker v Pershad Case Analysis

Case Analysis: Coker v. Pershad

a) Parties

The plaintiff in this case was Nicholas Coker, whereas the defendant was Terrence Pershad alongside two companies by the name Five Star Service and AAA.

b) Facts

A motorist by the name Alvarado got involved in an accident and sought the services of a road and emergency service by the name AAA (Casetext, 2021). The plaintiff was inside the vehicle involved in the accident – which was incidentally being driven by Alvarado. AAA engaged the services of a towing service by the name Five Star Service. The tow truck was being driven by Preshad. After a brief altercation at the scene of the accident, Coker was stabbed by Preshad (Casetext, 2021). AAA, Five Star Services and Preshad were sued by Coker.

c) Procedure

In a lower court, presided over by Judge Perez Friscia, a determination was made to the effect that Five star was the company that had engaged Pershad as an employee, and not AAA (Casetext, 2021). The judge also established that Five Star Services had been engaged by AAA as an independent contractor. Towards this end, the judge made a finding to the effect that the latter could not be held to account for any negligence on the part of the former. An appeal followed after a consideration motion was denied to Coker (Casetext, 2021). The appellate division, however, found no basis to overturn the decision of the lower court.

d) Issue

In basic terms, the main issue to be determined on this front was whether AAA could be held accountable (or liable) for the injuries that Coker, the plaintiff in this case, sustained. Similarly, a determination was to be made as to whether AAA could be held liable for the negligent, reckless, or ill-conceived behaviors as well as activities of Five Star Services and its employee.

e) Applicable Laws

The applicable laws on this front could be founded on case law. For instance, it should be noted that as Turner (2014) points out, in Puckrein v. ATI Transport, Inc., it was established that “when a person engages an independent contractor to do work that is not itself a nuisance, he is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the contractor in the performance of the contract” (131).

f) Holding

It was held that AAA was indeed not liable for the activities, workings as well as operations of Five Star Services (and, thus, the behaviors of its employees). This is more so the case given that Five Star Services had on this front been engaged by AAA as an independent contractor.

g) Reasoning

In addition to AAA, Five Star Services engaged and availed services to other customers for, or on behalf of, other companies. For this reason, an argument could be made that the said towing services firm was an independent contractor engaged in business using its own modes of operation and tools.