6 UNIT SEVEN: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT
32–3A. Employee versus independent contractor
A court might hold that Hemmerling and Happy Cab have an employment relationship primarily
on the basis of control. Happy Cab clearly has the right to control the methods or means used
by Hemmerling in the course of operating the taxicab by virtue of its exclusive control over the
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
32-4A. Agency by ratification
To impose liability for the acts of one’s employees or agents under respondeat superior, some
relationship must exist between the principal and agent or between the employer and employee.
Barrs’ argument is not correct. The evidence that Mr. Acree, the presumed landowner.
instructed Hall, his alleged employee, to clear the land by controlled burn, was insufficient to
establish that an actual agency relationship existed between the parties. Hall was the property
32–5A. Employment relationships
The facts support a conclusion that Jonathan was an independent contractor and not an
employee. In deciding whether a worker is categorized as an employee or an independent
contractor, the courts consider generally the amount of control that the employer exercises over
the details of the work. Is the work done under the employer’s direction or by a specialist without
supervision? Control indicates employee status.