Court Opinion

ID: 9733679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:13:53.175975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:43.460205
License: Public Domain

KEM THOMPSON FROST, Justice,
concurring.
The majority is correct in concluding that the Harris County Jail exercised sufficient control over appellant to make him the Jail’s employee under section 39.04 of the Penal Code, based on the holding in Ackley v. State that “an agent is the employee of his principal.” 592 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). Ackley, however, is somewhat at odds with the general principles of agency law upon which it relies. Ackley suggests that all agents are employees. See id. But Texas law has long recognized that not every agent is an employee; an agent may be an independent contractor. See Baptist Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex.1998); see also Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.001(2) (Vernon Supp. 2002) (defining “employee” of a governmental unit to include certain agents, but not those who are independent contractors or who perform tasks the details of which the governmental unit does not have the right to control); ■ Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220, cmts. e, g (1958) (stating that “it is important to distinguish between a servant and an agent who is not a servant, since ordinarily a principal is not liable for the incidental physical acts of negligence in the performance of duties committed by an agent who is not a servant” and that in statutes the term “employee” has largely replaced the term “servant”).
An agent is a person who is authorized by a principal to transact business or manage some affair on behalf of the principal. Grace Cmty. Church v. Gonzales, 853 S.W.2d 678, 680 (TexApp.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). As this court held in Robles v. Consolidated Graphics, Inc., “agent” and “independent contractor” are not mutually exclusive categories. 965 S.W.2d 552, 558 (TexApp.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied). Rather, “a party ‘who contracts to act on behalf of another and [is] subject to the other’s control except with respect to his physical conduct is *293an agent and also an independent contractor.’ ” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 14N (1958)). The extent of control the principal exerts over an agent determines whether the agent is an employee or an independent contractor.
The test to determine whether an agent is an employee instead of an independent contractor is “whether the employer has the right to control the progress, details, and methods of operations of the work.” Limestone Prods. Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.2002). In an employment relationship, the employer controls not only the end to be accomplished, “but also the means and details of its accomplishment.” Id. According to the Texas Supreme Court, the right to control is measured by considering several factors:
(1) the independent nature of the worker’s business;
(2) the worker’s obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials to perform the job;
(3) the worker’s right to control the progress of the work except about final results;
(4) the time for which the worker is employed; and
(5) the method of payment, whether by unit of time or by the job.

Id.

The evidence upon which the majority relies is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that appellant was an agent of the Harris County Jail; and, because Ackley equates agents with employees, this evidence is sufficient to support a finding that appellant was an employee of the Harris County Jail. See Ackley, 592 S.W.2d at 608. Application of the Texas Supreme Court’s test in Limestone Products, however, might yield a different result. See Limestone Prods. Distribution, Inc., 71 S.W.3d at 312. Nevertheless, because the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ackley is binding precedent in this criminal case, this court is correct to follow it. Under Ackley, this court must overrule appellant’s third and fourth points. Accordingly, I concur in the court’s judgment.