Summary
Reading this case, I understand the Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc. ruling for defendant Judith Studebaker. Nettie’s defense to subject James Ferry as an independent contractor did not correlate Nettie’s employment requirements for James Ferry to operate her daily deliveries and routes. Nettie’s defense could not separate Ferry’s personal stop without route as an outside operation, due to Nettie’s daily routine scheduling. Ferry’s routine also required a stop to the Grand Avenue shop, where Nettie compensated Ferry $5.00, “whether or not there was anything for him to take to the Grand Avenue shop (D. Twomey pg. 620).”
Section 16.5 of our textbook supports Studebaker’s defense against Nettie’s Flower Garden Inc., proper classification of workers. Although, Nettie did not provide Ferry with a company vehicle, benefits, are uniforms Nettie’s directions to Ferry upheld her…show more content… Yes, Nettie did have control during the time of Ferry’s collision. Nettie as a business owner operator bound Nettie as a responsible party during Ferry’s accident. Nettie’s arrangement with Ferry outline her employment operations and directions to take on employment as an employer with Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc. Therefore, obligating Nettie’s Flower Garden Inc. as a responsible party during Studebaker’s case argument.
2. No, because Ferry was still within the arranged operable route, which Nettie required Ferry to make route to the Grand Shop Avenue as Nettie arranged, “payment of $5.00 whether or not there was anything for Ferry to take (D. Twomey pg. 620).” Nettie’s arrangement to the Grande Shop Avenue held her responsible to an employer liability. In general, employers may be held liable for an accident arising out of the general course of employment. In some jurisdictions, it is possible for the employee to take legal action against the employer to recover damages for harm caused by the employer's negligence (Business Dictinary.com,
