Opinion ID: 2631225
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court correctly allowed the jury to decide whether an independent-contractor relationship existed between AEC and O & M.

Text: ¶ 28 Plaintiffs asserted in their brief in chief that the trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that O & M was an employee or agent of AEC and the court erred when it allowed the jury to consider the nature of the relationship between the parties. Because the Court of Civil Appeals viewed the non-delegable duty issue as dispositive of the appeal, the court did not address this proposition of error. Under the directive of Rule 1.180(b), we address the issue. [27] ¶ 29 Whether a person is considered an employee or an independent contractor depends upon the facts peculiar to each case. [28] The decisive test for determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control which the employer is entitled to exercise over the physical details of the work. [29] Where the evidence is conflicting or where reasonable people may differ in conclusions therefrom, the issue is one of fact for the jury. [30] ¶ 30 At trial both parties submitted considerable evidence on the issue. We have examined the record and find the evidence concerning the status of the relationship is in substantial dispute. Accordingly, the question of the legal relationship between AEC and O & M is not one that could be resolved as a question of law. The trial court properly submitted the issue as one of fact for determination by the jury.