Opinion ID: 901065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Moonlight is distinguishable from other precedent

Text: [¶ 22.] We finally note that this case is materially distinguishable from the cases cited by Moonlight. In Egemo, 470 N.W.2d at 821, the log cutters were independent contractors under SDCL 61-1-11. However, when Egemo no longer had work available for the cutter who was the subject of the appeal, the cutter went out of state to continue cutting timber. Id. at 823. That fact demonstrated that the cutter took the risk of his own unemployment and that his trade as a log cutter existed independently of his relationship with Egemo. Id. Moreover, the cutter had a substantial proprietary interest in his skill as a log cutter, as well as the equipment necessary for his trade. Id. at 818. [¶ 23.] Unlike Egemo, there is no evidence in this case that the sellers would continue selling roses absent their relationship with Moonlight. Furthermore, Moonlight supplied all necessary materials such as coolers, tubes, baskets, and initially, a tuxedo. The fact that the sellers paid their automobile expenses and purchased additional clothing is only incidental to their employment, and it alone does not create independent contractor status. [¶ 24.] Moonlight cites South Dakota Dept. of Labor v. Tri State Insulation Co., 315 N.W.2d 315 (S.D.1982) for the proposition that an independent contractor need invest in no more than an automobile and a ballpoint pen. Id. at 317. However, the facts in Tri State are also distinguishable. The salespeople in Tri State were significantly more independent than the rose sellers. The Tri State salespeople did their own advertising and were not required to report to, nor did they receive supervision from Tri State. Furthermore, unlike Moonlight's sellers, the salespeople in Tri State provided sales services for other companies, including Tri State's competitors. Therefore, if Tri State Insulation had gone out of business, those salespeople could have continued to sell for other enterprises. Because of these distinctions, Moonlight's reliance on Tri State is misplaced. [¶ 25.] Finally, Moonlight contends that Shoppers Guide controls. Shoppers Guide is distinguishable because the paper carriers were not subject to a non-compete clause. Furthermore, in Shoppers Guide, the newspaper only supplied the paper carriers with a bag for carrying the papers. Shoppers Guide, 1996 SD 92 at ¶ 13, 551 N.W.2d at 588. In this case, Moonlight supplied the rose sellers with the tuxedo, coolers, tubes, baskets, and a name tag with the Moonlight logo. Finally, the rose sellers were much less independent from Moonlight than the paper carriers were from the Shopper's Guide. [¶ 26.] Because Moonlight failed to establish that its sellers were customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business under SDCL 61-1-11, Moonlight's sellers were employees, not independent contractors. [¶ 27.] Affirmed. [¶ 28.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS and KONENKAMP, Justices, and AMUNDSON, Retired Justice, concur. [¶ 29.] MEIERHENRY, Justice, not having been a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.