Opinion ID: 1451217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: AMI Civ. 209

Text: For its second point on appeal, ConAgra asserts that the circuit court erred in giving the jury instruction, AMI Civ. 209, because this instruction placed the burden of proof on ConAgra to prove that PST was an independent contractor. ConAgra contends that, under our case law and the facts of this case, the burden of proof should have been placed on the Drapers to prove that PST was ConAgra's employee pursuant to AMI Civ. 207 (2008). The Drapers respond, arguing that we have previously rejected this same argument in Ben M. Hogan Co., Inc. v. Nichols, 254 Ark. 771, 496 S.W.2d 404 (1973). They further assert that ConAgra's argument would require the circuit court to weigh and evaluate the evidence in determining whether AMI 209 should be given, which cannot be done without encroaching on the jury's exclusive power to weigh and evaluate evidence. AMI 209 provides that, if the principal contends that the alleged agent was an independent contractor, the principal has the burden of proof. The Note on Use to AMI 209 states that this instruction should only be used if it is undisputed that the alleged agent was performing a service for and was being compensated by the principal. Otherwise, use AMI 207. When it is demonstrated that the person causing an injury was at the time rendering service for another and being paid for that service, and the facts presented are as consistent with the master-servant relationship as with the independent contractor relationship, then the burden is on the one asserting the independence of the contractor to show the true relationship of the parties. See Johnson, supra (citing Schuster's Inc. v. Whitehead, 291 Ark. 180, 722 S.W.2d 862 (1987)). It is generally held by the courts, including our own, that if the employer claims that an employee is an independent contractor for whose acts he is not responsible, the burden is upon him to show that fact. Id. (citing Phillips Coop. Gin Co. v. Toll, 228 Ark. 891, 311 S.W.2d 171 (1958)). The Drapers rely on Ben M. Hogan Co., supra , for its assertion that AMI 209, placing the burden of proof on ConAgra, was the proper instruction. However, this case does not provide any clarity on this issue. All that is mentioned about AMI 209 is the following: There was no error in submitting to the jury the question of whether Cumbie was an agent or employee of Hogan. There was no reversible error in the giving of AMI 209 over the objection made by appellant Hogan, even though Hogan contended throughout the trial that Steele, the owner of the truck driven by either Steele or Cumbie, was an independent contractor and that Cumbie was the employee of Steele. The only objection to the giving of this instruction was that it only applies when the facts are as consistent with the master-servant relationship as the independent contractor relationship, and that, if given, the jury should be so advised. Id. at 789, 496 S.W.2d at 416. This language simply suggests that there was no reversible error in giving AMI 209 because Hogan's only objection was that if the instruction was given, the jury should be advised that it only applies when the facts are as consistent with the master-servant relationship as the independent-contractor relationship. Here, ConAgra objected to the use of AMI 209 at trial and tendered AMI 207 in its place, as follows: Homer Otis Draper and Colleen Draper contend and have the burden of proving that at the time of the occurrence [PST] was acting within the scope of its authority as an agent of Con-Agra Foods, Inc. If you so find, then any negligence on the part of, or chargeable to, [PST] would be charged to Con-Agra Foods, Inc. This instruction clearly places the burden on the Drapers, rather than on ConAgra. The Note on Use to AMI 207 states, [i]f it is undisputed that the alleged agent was performing a service for and was being compensated by the principal, use AMI 209. ConAgra admits that PST performed the service of hauling poultry for ConAgra and that PST was being paid for that service. Therefore, according to the Notes on Use in AMI 207 and 209, AMI 209 is the proper instruction. ConAgra asserts that the facts in this case are not as consistent with the master-servant relationship as with the independent-contractor relationship. We follow our general rule that, if the employer claims that an employee is an independent contractor for whose acts he is not responsible, the burden is upon him to show that fact. See Johnson, supra. Therefore, we hold that the circuit court did not err in giving AMI 209. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's rulings. Affirmed.