La Grande Case Brief; Bowdoin Case Brief
William Le Grande v. B & L Services, INC. π (1983) ∆
FACTS: π set his own schedule, and operated independent and at his own discretion. π could use ∆ dispatch service but was not required to and could pick up passengers at his own discretion. π signed a K with ∆ disclaiming any ER/EE relationship. π paid ∆ a daily fee and paid for fuel. π kept all addition money. ∆ required π to keep "trip sheets" and comply with a simple dress code, both mandated by local ordinance. ∆ provided π with cab and paid license, tax, fee & insurance.
PRO POS: Workers' compensation claim dined by deputy commissioner.
ISSUE I: Did ∆ control over π constitute an ER/EE relationship? NO. - An ER/EE relationship requires "control over the person to the extent of prescribing the manner in which the work shall be executed and the method and details by which the desired result is to be accomplished."
RATIONAL: π was free to conduct his business on his own. The only control ∆ exercised over π was mandated by local regulations and so is not considered in determining ER/EE control.
ISSUE II: Does their K disclaiming any ER/EE relationship stop any claim by π otherwise? NO. - It is not for the parties to determine their legal relationship.
RATIONAL: While it is to be considered, it is of lesser importance than the other factors and does not preclude π from making claim.
JUDGEMENT: Affirmed by DCOA, 1st Dist.
-------------------------------------------
Bowdoin v. Anchor Cab π (1994) ∆
FACTS: π leased his cab from ∆ for a daily fee. ∆ set maximum fee amounts ∆ prohibited π from working for other cab companies or taking passengers from other company's dispatchers.
PRO POS: Worker's comp. benefits denied by Judge of Compensation Claims on ground that claimant was an independent contractor.
ISSUE I: Did ∆ control over π constitute an ER/EE relationship? YES. - ∆ controlled "how" π preformed his work.
RATIONAL: By setting the fee limit and
FACTS: π set his own schedule, and operated independent and at his own discretion. π could use ∆ dispatch service but was not required to and could pick up passengers at his own discretion. π signed a K with ∆ disclaiming any ER/EE relationship. π paid ∆ a daily fee and paid for fuel. π kept all addition money. ∆ required π to keep "trip sheets" and comply with a simple dress code, both mandated by local ordinance. ∆ provided π with cab and paid license, tax, fee & insurance.
PRO POS: Workers' compensation claim dined by deputy commissioner.
ISSUE I: Did ∆ control over π constitute an ER/EE relationship? NO. - An ER/EE relationship requires "control over the person to the extent of prescribing the manner in which the work shall be executed and the method and details by which the desired result is to be accomplished."
RATIONAL: π was free to conduct his business on his own. The only control ∆ exercised over π was mandated by local regulations and so is not considered in determining ER/EE control.
ISSUE II: Does their K disclaiming any ER/EE relationship stop any claim by π otherwise? NO. - It is not for the parties to determine their legal relationship.
RATIONAL: While it is to be considered, it is of lesser importance than the other factors and does not preclude π from making claim.
JUDGEMENT: Affirmed by DCOA, 1st Dist.
-------------------------------------------
Bowdoin v. Anchor Cab π (1994) ∆
FACTS: π leased his cab from ∆ for a daily fee. ∆ set maximum fee amounts ∆ prohibited π from working for other cab companies or taking passengers from other company's dispatchers.
PRO POS: Worker's comp. benefits denied by Judge of Compensation Claims on ground that claimant was an independent contractor.
ISSUE I: Did ∆ control over π constitute an ER/EE relationship? YES. - ∆ controlled "how" π preformed his work.
RATIONAL: By setting the fee limit and