Court Opinion

ID: 9741004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:47:21.521118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.582187
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the majority's conclusion in this case but find the "non-servant agent (independent contractor)" analysis set forth in Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co. (1976), 171 Ind.App. 166, 355 N.E.2d 253, 261 confusing and unhelpful.
Professor Seavey's analysis1 classifies "any one who acts for, or contracts with, the principal other than as a servant [as] an independent contractor."
However, he then makes an additional distinction between independent contractors who are agents and those who are not:
"In other words, there are two kinds of independent contractors-those who are agents and those who are not. Included in the group of independent contractors who are agents are attorneys, auctioneers, brokers, factors and other similar persons who conduct transactions for the principal." Seavey, p. 8.
The question is not so much whether the definition is right or wrong. Is it helpful? In the context here, the question is whether the attorney was an agent for purposes of respondeat superior. He was. It seems to me that whether he might be deemed a species of independent contractor in some broader form of analysis is superfluous.

. Seavey, Law of Agency (1964), Section 6, relied upon in Burkett.