Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 1051

Sperl et al. sued CHR for injuries/death from Henry’s tractor-trailer crash; Henry leased tractor from Dragonfly; CHR is a freight broker not a carrier.
CHR contracted with Dragonfly as the carrier; contract stated independent contractor relationship but CHR controlled load specifics and charges.
CHR issued load confirmation sheets with strict special instructions and fines to enforce timely delivery.
Henry transported CHR-purchased potatoes to CHR’s Bolingbrook warehouse delivering for Jewel; Henry paid by CHR for completed deliveries.
CHR paid Henry directly and involved itself in dispatch, scheduling, and load supervision, implying control consistent with agency.
Jury found CHR vicariously liable under respondeat superior; CHR sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CHR had an agency relationship with Henry.	Sperl argues CHR controlled Henry’s conduct.	CHR argues Henry was an independent contractor.	Agency existed; CHR liable.
Whether fault can be allocated among CHR and Dragonfly under 2-1117.	Liability derivative; CHR should bear all fault.	Dragonfly may share fault; CHR should be entitled to allocation.	No allocation; liability derivative to CHR; Dragonfly not liable for apportionment.

Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494 (1967) (standard for judgment notwithstanding the verdict)
Maple v. Gustafson, 177 Ill.2d 445 (1992) (manifest weight of the evidence standard; appellate review of n.o.v.)
Roberson v. Industrial Comm'n, 225 Ill.2d 159 (2007) (agency status not solely contractual; focus on surrounding circumstances)
Ware v. Industrial Comm'n, 318 Ill.App.3d 1117 (2000) (factors for agency vs. independent contractor; control and relation to business)
Moy v. County of Cook, 159 Ill.2d 519 (1994) (derivative liability and apportionment principles for master-servant)