Right to Control and Vicarious Liability
On the morning of April 1, 2004, DeAn Henry was delivering a load of potatoes for C.H. Robinson (CHR) www.chrobinson.com/. CHR is a logistics company that offers transportation services to customers needing to transport goods. Henry was involved in a multiple car accident Near Plainfield on Interstate 55 that resulted in the deaths of Joseph Sperl and Thomas Sanders. Henry owned the tractor she was driving and leased it to a company called Dragonfly.
The plaintiffs sued Henry, Dragonfly and CHR for wrongful death and personal injuries. CHR denied being vicariously liable and claimed that Dragonfly and Henry were acting as independent contractors per their contract. The circuit court denied CHR’s motion for a judgment n.o.v., which argued that the evidence did not support the jury’s $24 million dollar verdict against CHR that found a principal-agent relationship existed between CHR and Henry. CHR appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court stated the label of an “independent contractor” found in a contract is not determinative of employment status. Roberson v. Ind. Comm’n, 225 Ill. 2d 159 (2007). Although no single factor is determinative, an important factor that weighs in the favor of an agency relationship is the right to control. Here, the court concluded that CHR owned the transported product and directed Henry’s conduct during the entire truck trip. CHR enforced extensive special instructions given to Henry about her load, communication, and strict travel schedule, and even imposed a system of fines if Henry did not comply.
Another important factor is the nature of work performed in the relation to the general business of the defendant. Ware v. Ind. Comm’n, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 1122 (2000). Here, the court found that the nature of CHR’s transportation business was directly related to, if not the same as Henry’s work as a truck driver Thus the trial court properly permitted the jury to decide the case and interpret the inferences to be drawn based upon the evidence.
Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., 408 Ill.App.3d 1051
