Court Opinion

ID: 9374856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:05:43.408912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.557109
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0109-MR

JAMES MICHAEL EVERETT                                               APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE KAELIN G. REED, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 18-CI-00065

GREGORY PAUL EDELEN; DAWN
RENEE EDELEN; AND GREGORY
PAUL EDELEN AND DAWN RENEE
EDELEN DBA GREG EDELEN
FARM                                                                 APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, EASTON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: Appellant James Michael Everett (“Everett”) seeks reversal of

an order of the Marion Circuit Court, entered on January 10, 2022, granting

summary judgment in favor of Appellees Gregory Paul (“Greg”) Edelen and his
wife, Dawn Renee Edelen (“Edelens”). A review of the record reveals most of the

relevant interaction was between Everett and Greg Edelen.

                Everett contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment

and dismissing his bodily injury claim because Everett was the Edelens’ employee

when he was injured while building a barn on the Edelens’ property. Everett

further claims the Edelens owed him a heightened standard of care because of his

employee status. Having determined the record supports the determination of

Everett as an independent contractor as a matter of law based upon the undisputed

facts, we affirm.

                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                The parties agreed the underlying facts are undisputed.1 The Edelens

are residents of Marion County who own and operate a cattle farm. Everett is also

a resident of Marion County. Everett has worked for various construction

companies. Everett’s other employment history included various construction

projects, tobacco farming, and other odd jobs. Everett helped with some tobacco

farming with Greg Edelen’s father years ago.

                In March of 2017, the Edelens engaged Everett to build a barn on the

Edelens’ farm. There was no written agreement. Greg Edelen gave Everett the

general location of where the barn was to be built and gave Everett the size and

1
    Hearing on motion for summary judgment on December 16, 2021.

                                             -2-
dimensions of the barn. Everett testified that, outside these instructions, Greg

Edelen mostly left him alone to build the barn.

                 Everett brought some of his own tools to use in the construction of the

barn. The Edelens supplied the heavy equipment, including a tractor and posthole

digger. Greg Edelen borrowed a Bobcat2 for the job which he did not allow

anyone but himself to operate. The Edelens purchased the building materials with

Everett determining what would be needed.3

                 At one point early in the process, the Edelens did not like the

alignment of the barn. Greg Edelen had the initial posts pulled and had Everett

alter the location of the structure. Eventually, it appeared Everett would need

additional help to complete the barn. Greg Edelen procured the assistance of

family members to help Everett finish construction.

                 On March 26, 2017, Everett, Greg Edelen, Keith Edelen, Adam

Edelen, and Lincoln Hayden were present at the property. The men attempted to

attach A-frame trusses to the barn structure. Greg Edelen operated the Bobcat to

lift trusses up to Everett who affixed the trusses to the barn. While doing this,

Everett stood at the top of the barn structure, approximately twelve feet above the

ground. Everett attempted to slightly move and secure a truss when trusses fell,

2
    A compact tractor between the size of a riding lawnmower and a full-size tractor.
3
    Everett Deposition, pg. 60.

                                                 -3-
and Everett was knocked over. Everett fell to the ground. The Bobcat was not

being operated at the time of the fall.

              Everett claims his injuries left him with a poor memory of the day of

the accident. Everett first tried to seek damages based upon a claim the Edelens

did not help him after the fall. When it became clear in discovery his memory on

this point was doubtful, Everett abandoned that claim.4 The Edelens offered

immediate medical care, which Everett refused. Only after the Edelens took

Everett home did Everett later go to a local hospital for evaluation.

              After sustaining his injuries, Everett played no further role in the

construction of the barn on the Edelens’ property. The Edelens and their family

and friends finished the barn without Everett. The Edelens paid Everett $350.00

via check, with a memo line stating, “Labor.”

              The Edelens moved for summary judgment on the basis that Everett

was an independent contractor to whom they owed no duty of care in the

performance of his work. Everett opposed this motion, arguing he was an

employee of the Edelens, and that the Edelens owed him a duty to provide a safe

4
 Because Everett’s claim that the Edelens failed to render assistance was not included in his
prehearing statement, the claim is waived on appeal. Under the Kentucky Rules of Appellate
Procedure (“RAP”), the appellant is limited to the issues raised in the prehearing statement.
RAP 22(C)(2) (formerly Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 76.03(8)). Everett filed no motion to
permit consideration of this claim omitted from the prehearing statement.

                                             -4-
work environment, including compliance with safety regulations such as the

Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act.

                          STANDARD OF REVIEW

             “The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether

the circuit judge correctly found that there were no issues as to any material fact

and that the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Pearson

ex rel. Trent v. Nat’l Feeding Systems, Inc., 90 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Ky. 2002).

Summary judgment is only proper when “it would be impossible for the

respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.”

Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to construe the

record “in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion . . . and all

doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Id. A party opposing a summary judgment

motion “cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s

denial of a disputed fact, but must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a

properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 481 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). In Steelvest the word “‘impossible’ is used in a

practical sense, not in an absolute sense.” Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d 652,

654 (Ky. 1992).

                                         -5-
                The trial court did not make any findings of fact or state conclusions

of law. The trial court is not required to do so in deciding motions for summary

judgment. CR5 52.01. As summary judgment involves only legal questions if

there are no genuine issues of material fact, an appellate court does not defer to the

trial court’s decision and will review the issue de novo. Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56

S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001). Whether a person is an employee, or an

independent contractor is a question of law. Auslander Properties, LLC v. Nalley,

558 S.W.3d 457, 463 (Ky. 2018).

                                         ANALYSIS

                Everett argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as

Everett was the Edelens’ employee as a matter of law, and thus, the Edelens owed

Everett a heightened standard of care. In contrast, the Edelens argue Everett was

an independent contractor to whom they owed no duty of care in the performance

of his work.

                Kentucky courts have held an “individual is the agent of another if the

principal has the power or responsibility to control the method, manner, and details

of the agent’s work.” Nazar v. Branham, 291 S.W.3d 599, 606-07 (Ky. 2009).

However, if the individual is free to determine how the work is done and the

5
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                              -6-
principal cares only about the result, then said individual is an independent

contractor. Id. at 607.

               The traditional common law factors used to determine whether a

worker is an employee, or an independent contractor are outlined in Restatement

(Second) of Agency § 220(2). Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark

Cmty. Newspapers of Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Ky. 2002). These

factors are:

               (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

                                            -7-
             (j) whether the principal is or is not in business.

Id. No one of the aforementioned factors is determinative, and each case where it

must be determined whether an individual is an employee or independent

contractor should be resolved on its own facts. Id. at 580. We will address each of

these factors.

             Factor (a) considers the extent of control which, by the agreement, the

master exercises over the details of the work. As previously stated, there was no

written agreement between the parties. Greg Edelen testified he told Everett what

was needed and wanted in a barn. Greg Edelen did not instruct Everett on how to

build the structure. At the beginning of the process, Greg Edelen was dissatisfied

with the alignment of the barn as indicated by posts in the ground. Greg Edelen

then had the posts pulled and had Everett relocate the barn site.

             Everett argues the restarting of the construction of the barn indicates

Greg Edelen controlled the when, where, how, and details of the work. Greg

Edelen’s restarting of the barn building appears to be dissatisfaction with the initial

location of the barn, not with any details of how the barn was to be built by

Everett. Greg Edelen testified he did not give instructions to Everett on how to

build the barn. Greg Edelen left the details of construction to Everett. A farmer

simply telling an independent contractor the single detail of where to place the barn

is not the same as controlling how it is built.

                                          -8-
                Everett testified he squared off the barn himself. Everett testified that

Greg Edelen mostly helped him, and not the other way around. Greg Edelen

testified, “I done what he told me I needed to do or what I could do without

screwing something up . . . .”6 Greg Edelen also testified he is no carpenter. He

was not able to explain various terms used in putting up and securing the trusses

for a barn structure.7 Considering all circumstances, factor (a) leans toward

Everett’s being an independent contractor.

                Factor (b) asks whether the one employed is engaged in a distinct

occupation or business. The record shows Everett was not in a distinct occupation

or business, except that Everett held himself out as a person who could build

anything. Everett even bragged to Greg Edelen he could build an “underground

skyscraper.”8 Everett does not operate an LLC, corporation, or any other legally

recognized business entity. Everett testified he does odd jobs for different people,

stating, “I just, if somebody’s got something to do that I’m capable of doing, I do

it.” Everett had been a builder since he was a teenager. This translates to over

three decades of construction work. Everett was an experienced builder, including

6
    Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 36.
7
    Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 34-35.
8
    Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 66.

                                            -9-
the building of barns. Factor (b) leans toward Everett’s being an independent

contractor.

              Factor (c) of the analysis considers 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. There is no indication in the

record whether barn builders in the applicable community work under the direction

of an employer or without supervision. Due to a lack of any evidence on this

point, it is neutral.

              Factor (d) of the analysis considers the skill required in the particular

occupation. Comment i. of Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) states,

“Unskilled labor is usually performed by those customarily regarded as servants[.]”

In the current case, Everett had skill and experience in barn building – experience

the Edelens did not have. This work includes needed skills of carpentry. Everett

testified he had built ten to fifteen barns as part of a crew and that he had also built

a few barns by himself. Factor (d) leans toward Everett’s being an independent

contractor.

              Factor (e) of the analysis asks whether the employer or the workman

supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the

work. Everett brought some of his own tools to use on the construction of the

barn; however, the Edelens supplied other equipment, including for example a

                                          -10-
posthole digger. Greg Edelen borrowed the Bobcat, which he did not allow anyone

but himself to operate. The Edelens purchased the building materials, but what

was needed was determined by Everett. Since the Edelens provided most of the

tools and building materials, factor (e) leans toward Everett’s being an employee of

the Edelens.

               Factor (f) of the analysis considers the length of time for which the

person is employed. Greg Edelen’s engagement of Everett to build the barn was a

one-time engagement over the course of a few days or weeks with no plans to build

another one soon. In other words, this was not employment for a specified period.

Rather, it was hiring someone to build a barn, and the job ended when the barn was

done. Factor (f) leans toward Everett’s being an independent contractor.

               Factor (g) of the analysis considers the method of payment to the

worker, whether by the time or by the job. Comment j. of Restatement (Second) of

Agency § 220(2) considers payment by the job to be indicative of an independent

contractor. Because the project was not completed, the record may not

conclusively answer the question of terms of payment. After his fall, Everett was

paid a lump sum of $350.00 for his “labor.” Everett testified he was to be paid by

                                          -11-
the hour.9 Greg Edelen agrees payment was to be by the hour.10 Factor (g) leans in

favor of Everett’s being an employee.

                 Factor (h) of the analysis considers whether the work is a part of the

regular business of the employer. The Edelens are farmers, and Greg Edelen has

another job as a truck driver.11 The Edelens may need and use barns, but they are

not engaged in the business of building them. The Edelens needed someone who

knew how to build a barn where the Edelens needed one. They engaged Everett to

build the barn based on his skill and experience. Factor (h) leans toward Everett’s

being an independent contractor.

                 Factor (i) of the analysis asks whether the parties believe they are

creating the relationship of master and servant. Everett testified Greg Edelen

helped him during the construction. In other words, Greg Edelen and the other

helpers did what Everett told them to do in building the structure. As previously

mentioned, Greg Edelen did not even know the terminology used in the process of

placing the trusses. Again, Greg Edelen testified, “I done what he told me I needed

9
    Everett Deposition, pg. 46.
10
     Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 48.
11
     Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 5.

                                            -12-
to do or what I could do without screwing something up . . . .” Greg Edelen

testified he was no carpenter and that he held the “dummy end of the tape.”12

                 Significant in this aspect of the analysis is the statement of Everett

himself when asked about being an independent contractor. In his deposition,

Everett avoided agreement with the phrase “independent contractor” but stated he

was his own boss for the projects he undertook.13 When given the example of

building a garage, Everett explained he would submit a bid and be a contractor.

There is no clear indication Everett and the Edelens intended a master-servant

relationship. Factor (i) leans toward Everett’s being an independent contractor.

                 Factor (j) of the analysis asks whether the principal is or is not in

business. Everett asserts Greg Edelen is an employer because he is a businessman

who runs a cattle farm from which he derives a profit. However, Everett was not

hired to work on the cattle farm; instead, he was hired for the limited scope of

building a barn. The Edelens are not in the business of building barns, and thus,

factor (j) leans toward Everett’s being an independent contractor.

                 Considering all the factors found in Restatement (Second) of Agency

§ 220(2), the record shows Everett was an independent contractor, and not an

employee of the Edelens. In Davis v. Perkins, 620 S.W.2d 331 (Ky. App. 1981),

12
     Greg Edelen Deposition, pg. 69.
13
     Everett Deposition, pg. 32-33.

                                             -13-
this Court used the factors set out in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) in

determining that a barn builder injured while rebuilding a tobacco barn was an

independent contractor not entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits. In Davis,

the Court stated, “[T]he details of the construction of the barn were left to the

workers to determine among themselves, each contributing his particular skills and

knowledge, as needed.” Id. at 334.

             Recent appellate decisions have some similarities to the case at hand.

In Auslander, supra, the issue was whether a person hired to cut branches was an

employee. The Court observed the property owner “assisted Nalley by providing

an extra set of hands to handle the detached branches, but Nalley decided how,

when, and where he would cut the branches and where he would stand while doing

so. Auslander did not control the manner and method of Nalley’s work.” Id. at

466-67.

             In the current case, Everett squared off the barn himself. Greg Edelen

mostly helped Everett by providing extra sets of hands. Everett decided where to

place the trusses. Everett decided where he stood while he tried to adjust the

trusses just before he fell. Greg Edelen did have Everett relocate the placement of

the barn before it was built due to dissatisfaction with the barn’s alignment, but this

does not rise to Edelen controlling the manner and method of Everett’s work of

actually building a barn. Greg Edelen was still reliant on Everett to build the barn

                                         -14-
just as the property owner in Auslander relied upon the independent contractor to

decide how to accomplish the task of removing branches.

             Another recent case is Dexter v. Hanks, 577 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. App.

2019). In Dexter, a handyman brought a premises liability action against a

homeowner after the handyman fell and slipped off the homeowner’s roof while he

was applying sealer. Id. at 790. The homeowner had hired the handyman to seal

the metal roof on the homeowner’s residence. Id. at 791. The handyman had

previously performed similar services for the homeowner, including painting the

roof of the homeowner’s garage. Id. The handyman was applying paint and sealer

to the roof when he lost his footing and fell twenty feet to the ground. Id. at 792.

             The trial court in Dexter granted summary judgment to the

homeowner, determining the handyman to be an independent contractor, and

therefore, the homeowner had no duty to provide safety equipment. Id. at 793.

This Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the handyman was an

independent contractor, stating that the handyman was free to determine how best

to seal the roof, whereas the homeowner was only concerned with the result. Id. at

796.

             Auslander and Dexter, although factually distinguishable, are like the

current case as both cases involved property owners who contracted an

independent contractor to work on their properties. In both cases, the property

                                         -15-
owner left the details of the job to the contractor. In the current case, Greg Edelen

left the details of the job of building the barn to Everett.

             With the analysis of the factors provided in the Restatement (Second)

of Agency § 220(2), as well as the Davis, Auslander, and Dexter cases, this Court

agrees the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Edelens. Everett

was an independent contractor.

                                  CONCLUSION

             The Marion Circuit Court’s order granting summary judgment entered

on January 10, 2022, is AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

 Gregory J. Bubalo                           Robert Spragens, Jr.
 Aaron M. Williams                           Lebanon, Kentucky
 Louisville, Kentucky

                                          -16-