Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc. Plaintiff Judith Studebaker was injured in a car wreck with James Ferry, an employee of defendant Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc. Ferry was responsible for the accident, and Studebaker sought to recover from Nettie's for the injury under the theory of respondeat superior. Ferry was a flower delivery man for defendant. Ferry was paid per delivery, not on an hourly basis, and was responsible for establishing his own delivery schedule. Ferry used his own van for the deliveries, but Nettie had requirements for the van. Ferry did not wear a uniform, but was required to dress neatly and expected to behave in a business-appropriate manner. Ferry was responsible for his own expenses. Ferry had finished his morning deliveries and then went to a pawn shop to conduct some personal business. On the way to Nettie's shop, Ferry had an accident and hit Studebaker's automobile. Studebaker brought suit against Nettie's on the basis of respondeat superior. The trial court found in favor of Studebaker. Nettie's appealed the trial court's decision, contending that Ferry was not its employee at the time of the accident. Nettie's position was based on two factors: the idea that it did not control Ferry's behavior and the idea that Ferry had been engaged in a personal errand just before the accident in question. The court examined the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether or not Nettie's should have been held responsible for Ferry's accident.

Issues: Did Nettie's control or have the right to control Ferry at the time of the collision? Is not the fact that Ferry, just prior to the accident, had gone to a pawn shop compelling evidence that he was using his van exclusively for his independent purposes and was not acting within the course of his employer's business.

Reasoning: The decision in this case comes down to the doctrine of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior is "A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or...

The issue in this case comes down to whether Ferry was an employee of Nettie's or whether he was an independent contractor outside of Nettie's control. "The test to determine if respondeat superior applies to a tort is whether the person sought to be charged as master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act"(Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, 842 S.W. 2d 227 (1992). "If there was no right to control there is no liability; for those rendering services but retaining control over their own movements are not servants" (Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, 842 S.W. 2d 227 (1992). "The master-servant relationship arises when the person charged as master has the right to direct the method by which the master's service is performed" (Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, 842 S.W. 2d 227 (1992). "An additional inquiry is whether the person sought to be charged as the servant was engaged in the prosecution of his master's business and not simply whether the accident occurred during the time of employment" (Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, 842 S.W. 2d 227 (1992). What all of these factors mean is that there is no single test for determining whether a person is an employee; instead, the court must examine the totality of the circumstances.
Analysis: Whether or not the trial court's decision was reasonable was based on whether or not it was reasonable to hold Nettie's responsible as Ferry's employer at the time of the accident. The fact that Ferry was not hired as an employee, but worked more like an independent contractor, was not dispositive of the issue. Even though Ferry was not directly employed by Nettie's, Nettie had control over his actions. The court rejected the argument that Ferry was on his own time and not on company time when the accident occurred. Instead, the court determined that Nettie's had sufficient control over Ferry to be classified as an employer. Moreover, the court…