Jose works for a magazine publisher. Jose works out of his home and furnishes his own supplies. He pays his own taxes and uses his own car for his work. The magazine publisher reimburses Jose for gas mileage. While driving in his car on a work-related matter, Jose is involved in an automobile collision with another automobile.
Would Jose be liable? Why or why not? Would Jose's employer be liable? Why or why not?
2007-08-09 13:27:42 · 17 answers · asked by berkat29 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As most of the other answerer's have said, if Jose is acting in the capacity of an independent contractor, he and not the company would technically be liable for any damages.
However, in the real world, the injured party may discover that Jose was acting in an indirect capacity for the company, and decide to sue both Jose and the company and let a judge sort it out. If Jose has only the minimum amount of insurance required by law, and the company is a well-known corporation with "deep-pockets", you had better believe that the company will also be sued.
Because of this, most companies require their independent contractors to carry a specified amount of commercial auto insurance, as well as to name the company as an "additional insured" on their auto policies.
2007-08-09 17:50:21 · answer #1 · answered by silvaconsultants 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You may have a problem with your terminology.
In the USA the relationship is EITHER employer employee OR independent contractor on some kind of contract NOT both at the same time. The Infernal Revenue Service (IRS) defines which it is by the degree to which the worker has independence in decisions from the source of the money.
Suppose I am an employee commuting to & from work in my own car & I have an accident. My employer has nothing to do with this because I was driving in my car.
From time to time I have to run some errands for my employer, such as go to a different office. Sometimes I am carrying company property with me, such as backup tapes, supplies, reports. Suppose I have an accident. The employer has nothing to do with it, because it was my car.
On occasion, I get to use one of the company vehicles, such as when it is a long drive & there are lots of sutff to transport. Suppose I have an accident. The company is involved because the company owns the vehicle.
Independent contractor same situation here ... what is important is not the relationship between paying money for services and the person doing the services, what's important is who is driver, who owsn vehicle.
As for who is liable in an accident, that depends on whose fault the police rule is the accident, whether the accident occurred in a fault or no fault state, and the nature of the insurance coverage on both drivers and both vehicles.
Perhaps you should review my earlier answer on the various kinds of auto insurance that people can have.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApQYi5kVDGnVqwiCD5BQ2Ojty6IX?qid=20070719151415AA3ACTP
2007-08-09 13:49:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jose is liable. This is because the car itself is not provided by the employer. The employer is not liable unless (1) they provide the car, or (2) the employer is responsible for the maintenance of the car. Neither is true here. Even though Jose was within the scope of his duties with his employer, they are not liable.
2007-08-09 14:10:25 · answer #3 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoever was at fault - caused the accident. The employer is not liable because Jose is an independent contractor = self employed.
2007-08-09 13:32:48 · answer #4 · answered by Monique 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First let me say unlike what a couple of answerers wrote it is of no consequence if you were at fault. The rule of thumb is the accident would NOT have happened if the company did not send you on the errand or even if it is part of your overall job description there is always a safety/hazard issue which is why they must carry additional insurance, etc.... If you were in the accident and it was not company related (for example, you were supposed to go from point A to B and maybe C and then return to work. But you decided to take a detour to do a personal errand. You are at fault and the company is under no liability and they can even require you to pay for damages caused to the vehicle to avoid any increase in premiums.) Again, regardless who was at fault the company is liable as long as it was job related.
2016-04-01 08:35:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In most cases, Jose would be liable because he is in his personal vehicle. Were he driving a company owned vehicle, the company would be liable. Reimbursement is typically how company's stay away from circumstances like these. Regardless of it being a work related matter, being in your personal vehicle on company time still falls under the employees liability.
2007-08-09 13:32:11 · answer #6 · answered by purdue_girl13 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what Jose and the employer have put in writing and/or discussed. If he's on the clock- the employer should be responsible, but it depends on where you live etc . . . Call an attorney that works on a contingency basis and get a free consult to find out for sure.
2007-08-09 13:32:11 · answer #7 · answered by yummymummy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Jose signed on as an independent contractor and is taxed as such, then by definition he (Jose) is liable because of the nature of his employment.
2007-08-09 13:34:52 · answer #8 · answered by free thinker 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You need to consult an attorney in your states. Laws governing "independent contractors" vary by state. Generally speaking, Jose will be liable if the accident is deemed his fault. If he was in the publisher's auto, the results might be different.
2007-08-09 13:34:01 · answer #9 · answered by jack w 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have already stated that he is an independent contractor (that's a legal conclusion, and not a fact) so no. That is, unless he was an agent of the magazine. Agency is also a legal conclusion.
The answer: nowhere near enough information.
2007-08-09 13:43:37 · answer #10 · answered by robert f 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋