Opinion ID: 1096305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusive presumption

Text: In its consideration of the second factor under the Restatement, the Kendall opinion observed that: We have the definite opinion that newspaper boys as they perform their work generally in this country have a place in the pattern of American life that constitutes a distinct occupation, Sec. 220(2)(b), and that the provisions of the contract in this case are harmonious with this idea. Id. Following Kendall, some courts have seized upon this passage to conclude that Kendall created a conclusive presumption that newscarriers are independent contractors. E.g., City of Port St. Lucie v. Chambers, 606 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (Barfield, J., concurring), review denied, 618 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Walker v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 561 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Sharp, J., concurring specially), dismissed, 576 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1990); Peairs v. Florida Publishing Co., 132 So.2d 561, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) ([W]e assume and hold that the newspaper carriers here bore the relation of independent contractor to the defendant... .); cf. Levine v. The Miami Herald, 7 Fla. Compensation Reports 278, 282 (Fla. Indus. Relations Comm'n 1973) ([T]he Judge of Industrial Claims erred as a matter of law in his unequivocal declaration that the law of the state excluded from workmen's compensation coverage as `employees,' newsboys as a class.), cert. denied, 280 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1973); Monroe v. Florida Publishing Co., 6 Fla. Compensation Reports 371, 372, (Fla. Indus. Relations Comm'n 1970) ([T]he leading case of [ Kendall ] held that under the provisions of the contract between newspapers and carriers they are to be considered independent contractors and therefore not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1970). In fact, however, we find the Kendall court was simply analyzing the case by use of the Restatement factors. By discussing whether newspaper delivery constituted a distinct occupation, the Kendall opinion was not creating an ironclad presumption. In fact, any suggestion that a presumption was created would run counter to the Court's express statement that the facts peculiar to each case govern the decision. Kendall, 88 So.2d at 278. While the Court may have been guilty of stating a debatable generalization in characterizing newspaper boys as members of a distinct occupation, it closed no doors as to the consideration of the status issue under the facts peculiar to each case. [2] Of course, stability in the law requires that we decide similar cases alike, unless there are substantial reasons for establishing a new rule. Stare decisis is an important and fundamental principle of our legal tradition. In sum, Kendall remains viable as an important precedent, but it does not create a conclusive presumption that all newscarrier delivery persons are independent contractors.