Opinion ID: 1952376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Principal/Agent Servant or Independent Contractor

Text: Depending upon the right of control capable of being exercised by the principal, agents are characterized either as servants or independent contractors. If the principal assumes the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract, a master/servant type of agency relationship has been created. See Gooden v. Mitchell, Del.Super., 21 A.2d 197, 200-01 (1941). If, however, the worker is not subject to that degree of physical control, but is subject only to the general control and direction by the contractee, the worker is termed an independent contractor. See Gooden v. Mitchell, 21 A.2d at 200-01. The right of control is only one component on the list of considerations that must be balanced to determine whether a person is a servant or an independent contractor. See White v. Gulf Oil Corp., 406 A.2d at 51 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220 (1958)). See generally ROBERT W. WOOD, LEGAL GUIDE TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS (2d ed.1996). In determining whether one who acts for another is a servant or an independent contractor, this Court has recognized Section 220 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency as an authoritative source for guidance. White v. Gulf Oil Corp, 406 A.2d at 51. The Restatement (Second) of Agency states that the following non-exclusive matters of fact are to be considered in deciding whether the actual tortfeasor is a servant or an independent contractor: (a) the extent of control, which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work; (b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (d) the skill required in the particular occupation; (e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (f) the length of time for which the person is employed; (g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; (i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (j) whether the principal is or is not in business. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220. Accordingly, in making the determination of whether a person is a servant or an independent contractor, this Court has recognize[d] that no single rule could be laid down to determine whether a given relationship is that of [a servant to a master] as distinguished from an independent contractor. White v. Gulf Oil Corp., 406 A.2d at 51. Instead, `[e]ach particular case must ... depend on its own facts.' Id. (quoting Gooden v. Mitchell, Del.Super., 21 A.2d 197, 201 (1941)); see Sussex County v. Morris, Del. Supr., 610 A.2d 1354, 1360 (1992); Mechell v. Palmer, Del.Supr., 343 A.2d 620, 621 (1975); see also Morris v. Blake, Del.Super., 552 A.2d 844, 849 (1988), aff'd sub nom. Sussex County v. Morris, Del.Supr., 610 A.2d 1354 (1992). That determination is ordinarily made by the factfinder. See Billops v. Magness Constr. Co., Del.Supr., 391 A.2d 196, 198 (1978); Mechell v. Palmer, 343 A.2d at 621-22; Gooden v. Mitchell, 21 A.2d at 201; see also Sussex County v. Morris, 610 A.2d at 1360.