Opinion ID: 1658311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agency Status

Text: The second issue Sessions raises is whether Buddy Ward was an agent of the company or was an independent contractor. If Ward was a company agent, then Sessions would be liable to Turner under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The test of whether the relationship is that of independent contractor or of employer-employee is whether the alleged employer has reserved the right of control over the means and agencies by which the work is done, not the actual exercise of such control. Sawyer v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 421 So.2d 1263 (Ala.1982); Tuscaloosa Veneer Co. v. Martin, 233 Ala. 567, 172 So. 608 (1937). For one to be an employee, the other party must retain the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the result to be accomplished. Weeks v. C.L. Dickert Lumber Co., 270 Ala. 713, 121 So.2d 894 (1960). Because working relationships take a wide variety of forms, each case must depend on its own facts, and all features of the relationship are considered together. Burbic Contracting Co. v. Willis, 386 So.2d 419 (Ala.1980). There is evidence in the record that Sessions retained and exercised the right to direct the manner in which Ward purchased the peanuts for the company. Ward testified that he received and followed instructions from Sessions concerning the purchasing of peanuts. These instructions included the price to be offered and the right to sign contracts for additional peanuts. Ward also testified that the materials used in purchasing were furnished by Sessions. The fact that Ward opened and closed the Geneva station each season and that he was responsible for hiring and paying his own crew is not determinative. Sessions directed the manner in which the essential business of the company was conducted. The jury, therefore, had ample evidence from which to determine that Ward was an agent of Sessions.