Studebaker V. Nettie's Flower Garden Case Study

In the case of Studebaker v. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc., Judith Studebaker the plaintiff was injured when she was involved in a car accident with the Van that James Ferry an employee of Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc. was driving. Studebaker sued Nettie’s based on the respondeat Superior theory, claiming that when the accident happened, Ferry was acting as an employee of Nettie’s. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc., the defendant claimed that Ferry was not an employee but an independent contractor, and therefore they had no control or right to even control Ferry’s actions at the time of the accident. 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 …show more content…
The fact that before the accident Ferry made a stop for his personal business/interest does not mean that he was using the van solely for personal motives. The day of the accident ferry made his morning run and his mid-day stop at the shop in downtown at around 11:00am. They had nothing for him to transport and on his way to the grand Avenue shop to prepare for his afternoon run, he decided to stop at the pawnshop for his personal business. Despite the fact that Ferry made a personal business stop he was still working within the capacity of his employment. In addition, although Ferry mapped out his own route to deliver the flowers, Nettie’s gave him the list of customers and determined his territory (Twomey, 2013, p. 621). The entire time, ferry was acting as an employee of Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc. According to Twomey, 2013, Ferry’s slight detour prior to the accident to conduct personal business did not mean that he was using his van exclusively for his independent purposes…The object of Ferry’s trip was not just to go to the pawn shop (p. 620-621). If the pawn shop was not on Ferry’s way to the Grand Avenue shop, I do not believe he could have gone there, the only reason he stopped there was probably because it was on his way, just like stopping at a fast food restaurant to get some food to eat. This stop was so encompassed within his daily routine that it would be difficult to segregate it from his morning and afternoon runs (Twomey, 2013, p. …show more content…
It makes so much sense financially for the company to convert some employees to independent contractors. However, the businesses that convert their employees into independent contractor should face serious penalties from the government because it’s not fair to those employees and not fair to other businesses that do things the right way following the law. Many employees depend on the health insurance benefits, retirement benefits for themselves as well as their families. Unfortunately, some employees might find it advantageous to be independent contractor employees but that would mean that they are responsible for having their own liability insurance, health insurances which can be costly. Some employees can even stop operating as independent contractors because of the cost of insurances and health insurance just to go work for a normal company in order to get benefits for their families and themselves as well. Employers who wrongly qualify some of their employee as independent contractors just to avoid the cost of the benefits should continue to face the toughest penalties by the government. Honestly, it’s not unethical for businesses to do what they need to do in order to reduce cost, actually it’s a smart thing to do. However, it’s unethical to reducing cost for the good of your business at the cost of employee’s benefits while other employers who are fair and respected offer a lot of benefits to their