Opinion ID: 2102404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Employee-Independent Contractor Instruction.

Text: Component Homes argues the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on the employee-independent contractor distinctions. The court, in Instruction twenty-five, stated that, while the most important consideration in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the physical conduct of the worker, other factors should also be considered. Those factors, it instructed, included the right to terminate, requirements for adherence to employer rules, whether products are sold in the employer's name, percentage of the worker's time devoted to the employer's business, and others. Component Homes' objection centered on the court's refusal to instruct that the overriding element to be considered is the intention of the parties as to the relationship they have created. The court did not err in refusing this instruction because it is not a correct statement of the law. We have held that the primary consideration is the right of control, not the intention of the parties. See Greenwell, 189 N.W.2d at 904-05. While the Restatement lists the intentions of the parties as one consideration, there is no suggestion it is the primary consideration or even that intent is a prerequisite to a finding of an employer-employee relationship. See Restatement (Second) Agency § 220 (1958). Hassebroch v. Weaver Construction Co., 246 Iowa 622, 67 N.W.2d 549 (1954), which defendant relies on in pressing its intent argument, mentions the Restatement rule, but points out it was a factor not considered in Iowa cases. Id. at 628, 67 N.W.2d at 553. Moreover, as Miller points out, the party's intent is implicit in other factors listed for the juror's consideration. We conclude the trial court correctly instructed the jury on this issue.