Opinion ID: 836042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Control Test

Text: Whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is a legal conclusion. That conclusion, however, depends on a factual determination of the extent to which the purported employer has the right to control the performance of services by the individual. Jenkins v. AAA Heating & Cooling, Inc., 245 Or. 382, 386-87, 421 P.2d 971 (1966). In Jenkins, this court stated: While there is no simple measure of the extent to which an employer may control a worker in the performance of his task without creating a master-servant relationship, control over performance remains the principal test. The definition of a servant in the Restatement (Second), Agency, § 220(1) (1958), is generally accepted by most courts. It reads: `A servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other's control or right to control.' Id. (emphasis added). See also Meskimen v. Larry Angell Salvage Co., 286 Or. 87, 91-92, 592 P.2d 1014 (1979) (quoting Jenkins and Restatement test); Jorgensen v. Richard, 266 Or. 263, 265, 512 P.2d 991 (1973) (quoting Restatement test); Wallowa Valley Stages v. Oregonian, 235 Or. 594, 598, 386 P.2d 430 (1963) ([T]he right of the employer to control the workman is the basis most commonly advanced for imposing liability upon the employer.); Kowaleski v. Kowaleski, 235 Or. 454, 458, 385 P.2d 611 (1963) (Right by the master to control the conduct of the driver is the favorite approach of the courts, including this court.).