Secci v. United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc.
8 Cal. App. 5th 846
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Emanuele Secci was injured in a motorcycle-taxi collision involving driver Aram Tonakanian driving a taxi bearing United Independent Taxi Drivers’ insignia; jury found Tonakanian was United’s agent but not an employee.
- Tonakanian owned his cab, set his hours, paid dues/fees to United, and his contract labeled him an independent contractor; United provided dispatching, marketing, training manuals, required equipment, standardized livery, and could fine/discipline or terminate drivers.
- United held city franchise agreements requiring compliance with municipal rules (insurance, lists of vehicles), and many company rules mirrored or implemented city regulations; drivers could accept/reject dispatches and pick up street fares.
- After two trials and two denied summary judgment motions, a jury returned verdict for Secci finding agency; the trial court granted JNOV for United, ruling evidence of control was attributable to government or third-party regulation and so could not establish agency.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that externally imposed regulatory controls may be considered as evidence of agency and that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Tonakanian was United’s agent, so JNOV was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence that Tonakanian was United’s agent | Secci: company rules, training, equipment, livery, ability to discipline/terminate and dispatch system show United had control sufficient for agency | United: controls derive from municipal/public regulation or benefit both parties and therefore cannot be used to establish agency; JNOV proper | Court: Reversed JNOV — regulatory or third-party–imposed controls may be considered; substantial evidence supported agency finding |
| Whether controls required by public regulation must be ignored when determining agency | Secci: regulations implementing company controls are admissible evidence of control | United: such controls are not evidence of company control because they originate from public authorities or third parties | Court: Rejected United; California law does not require ignoring regulatory controls when assessing control/agency |
| Whether agency can exist when worker is labeled an independent contractor | Secci: agency and independent contractor status are not mutually exclusive; agency can exist despite contractor label | United: label and contractor freedoms show no agency | Court: Label is not dispositive; the totality of control factors supports agency here |
| Standard of review for JNOV on agency question | Secci: jury finding supported by substantial evidence; JNOV reviewed for substantial evidence | United: frames legal question warranting de novo review (are regulatory controls considered?) | Court: Legal question limited; but ultimate review is substantial-evidence for jury finding after resolving legal point that regulatory controls are admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Deutsch, 89 Cal.App.2d 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (taxi association held vicariously liable where association controlled appearance, conduct, supervision)
- Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 226 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (lease drivers treated as employees where company exercised sufficient control despite lease language)
- SIDA of Hawaii, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 512 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1975) (Ninth Circuit excluded regulatory/mutual-benefit rules from employer-control analysis in NLRA context)
- N.L.R.B. v. Friendly Cab Co., 512 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (upheld Board finding of employment based on company control exceeding municipal requirements)
- Millsap v. Federal Express Corp., 227 Cal.App.3d 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (discussed regulated-hirer exception imposing nondelegable duties on franchisees/carriers)
- Eli v. Murphy, 39 Cal.2d 598 (Cal. 1952) (regulated hirer exception: carriers cannot avoid liability by using independent contractors where public safety and franchise obligations exist)
- Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (Cal. 1993) (general rule and exceptions to non-liability for independent contractors)
- S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (multi-factor test distinguishing employees from independent contractors)