 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walters v. Americab1/30/1997
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Appellee Americab, Inc., operates a fleet of taxicabs and leases them to individual drivers whom it characterizes as independent contractors. Claimant John Walters suffered paralyzing injuries while driving an Americab taxi and sought workers' compensation benefits. Americab denied the claim, arguing claimant's status as an independent contractor precluded his participation in fund. The Industrial Commission of Ohio ultimately disallowed the claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Americab. The sole issue in this appeal is whether claimant presented sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to his employment status.
Civ.R. 56(C) provides that summary judgment shall issue if there is no issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to claimant, we find the trial court did not err by concluding the evidentiary material failed to establish an issue for the trier of fact.
As a general proposition, every employee who is injured in the course of employment is entitled to receive from the state insurance fund compensation for loss sustained on account of the injury. See R.C. 4123.54. The factual predicate for participation in the workers' compensation fund is the existence of an employer- employee relationship. An independent contractor is not an employee for purposes of workers' compensation law. Bostic v. Conner (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 144, 145.
In Gillum v. Indus. Comm. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 373, paragraph two of the syllabus states:
"Whether one is an independent contractor or in the service depends on the facts of each case. The principle test applied to determine the character of the arrangement is that if the employer reserves the right to control the manner of means of doing the work, the relation created is that of master and servant, while if the manner or means of doing the work or job is left to one who is responsible to the employer only for the result, an independent contractor status is thereby created."
The courts examine several non-exclusive indica when determining the scope of the employment relationship: " ho controls the details and quality of the work; who controls the hours worked; who selects the materials; tools and personnel used; who selects the routes travelled; the length of employment; the type of business; the method of payment; and any pertinent agreements or contracts." Bostic, supra, at 146. "Whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor is ordinarily an issue to be determined by the trier of fact. The key factual determiniation is who had the right to control the manner or means of doing the work. (citation omitted)." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
The employment status of taxi drivers is not a new issue -- the supreme court first considered this question more than sixty years ago in Coviello v. Indus. Comm. (1935), 129 Ohio St. 589. Coviello leased a taxicab from a cab company, paying a flat rental charge for a twelve hour period. He signed a contract acknowledging his status as an independent contractor, and disavowed any entitlement to compensation as an employee. Coviello paid a lease fee and mileage, but retained all monies earned during the lease period. The cab company did issue certain rules relating to driver courtesy and appearance, rates, and manner of driving, but these rules merely restated city ordinances. The cab company did not require Coviello to drive within a particular zone of the city nor was he required to return to a particular place when finished with a fare.
The supreme court found Coviello failed to show an e
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|