Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer is responsible for an employee’s negligence if the negligent act occurred on the job. Many defendants attempt to avoid vicarious liability by denying the existence of a employer-employee relationship. One way they do this is by labeling the negligent actor an “independent contractor” rather than an “employee.” But Florida courts look beyond such labels when analyzing whether a principal-agent relationship exists.
In Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 1966), the Florida Supreme Court listed ten non-exclusive “matters of fact” courts should consider in determining whether someone is an employee, including:
- “the extent of control which, by the parties’ agreement, the employer exercises over the details of the work,”
- “whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work,” and
- “whether or not the parties believe that they are creating the relation of master and servant.”
Of these, “control” is “[a] particularly significant factor.” Del Pilar v. DHL Glob. Customer Sols. (USA), Inc., 993 So. 2d 142, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Critically, “it is the right of control, and not actual control, which determines the relationship between the parties.” Id. (emphasis added).
When evaluating whether one party has the right to control another, courts will examine any contract between the parties. But they look beyond the “descriptive labels employed by the parties themselves.” Id. In other words, even if a contract disclaims an employer/employee relationship and refers to the actor as an “independent contractor,” that doesn’t end the analysis. The court will scrutinize the terms of the agreement itself.
The First DCA’s decision in Del Pilar, where the court held that DHL could be vicariously liable for the negligence of a delivery driver, is instructive. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident involving a van bearing DHL’s branding, driven by Johnny Boyd. Boyd was wearing a DHL uniform and transporting packages for DHL customers.
Boyd worked for Silver Ink, Inc., a local delivery company under contract with DHL to manage all package pickups and deliveries in the Jacksonville, Florida area. The contract between DHL and Silver Ink labeled Silver Ink as an “independent contractor” and stated that the “manner and means” of performing services were Silver Ink’s sole responsibility. Yet despite this language, DHL retained significant control over Silver Ink’s operations. The contract:
- Required Silver Ink drivers to wear DHL uniforms funded by DHL;
- Mandated use of DHL-branded vans designed to DHL specifications;
- Allowed for unannounced inspections and audits by DHL;
- Prescribed detailed procedures for package scanning and delivery;
- Required Silver Ink to indemnify DHL for any negligence-related losses.
Additionally, Silver Ink operated out of a facility co-located with DHL’s, and DHL employees monitored and reviewed Silver Ink’s operations daily.
Although the trial court granted summary judgment for DHL, ruling that Silver Ink and Boyd were independent contractors, the First DCA reversed. The appellate court pointed to all the ways DHL directed and monitored Silver Ink’s work, concluding there was “a genuine and material question of fact” as to whether DHL had the right to control Silver Ink.
In sum, when vicarious liability is on the table, it’s essential to use discovery tools strategically to understand the relationship between the parties—through requests for production of contracts, internal policies, and operational procedures. If a defendant exercises sufficient control over how a negligent actor performs their duties, you may be able to hold both the tortfeasor and the controlling entity liable.