The AUGUSTA CHRONICLE v. JAMES CHANDLER WOODALL
A21A0493
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- On May 7, 2018, Timothy Cummings, a newspaper carrier for The Augusta Chronicle, backed out of a driveway while delivering and collided with James Woodall, who sued Cummings and The Augusta Chronicle seeking vicarious liability for Cummings’ negligence.
- The Chronicle defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Cummings was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore they were not vicariously liable.
- Cummings had an "Independent Contractor Agreement" stating he was free to determine his means and manner of delivery; he used his own vehicle, carried his own insurance, bought papers wholesale, received 1099s, paid no employee benefits, and could hire a substitute without Chronicle approval.
- The Chronicle provided daily delivery lists with customer addresses and customer-specified delivery requests; drivers had deadlines for delivery but otherwise set pickup time, route order, and methods.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine factual dispute about whether the independent contractor agreement applied and whether the Chronicle controlled manner/method; the Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review and reversed, holding Cummings was an independent contractor and summary judgment should have been granted for the Chronicle defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether The Augusta Chronicle is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for the carrier’s negligence | Woodall: Chronicle exercised control over delivery area, time, and manner (thus employer-employee relationship) | Chronicle: Contractor agreement and factual indicia (own vehicle/insurance, 1099, buy papers wholesale, control over route/order, hire substitutes) show independent contractor | Held: Cummings was an independent contractor; Chronicle not vicariously liable; summary judgment should have been granted |
| Whether delivery deadlines and customer-specified instructions convert an independent contractor relationship into employment | Woodall: required delivery times and mandated locations/manner show control | Chronicle: deadlines and customer requests set result, not the means; Chronicle did not control hours, routes, or how deliveries were performed | Held: Requiring results/times does not equal control of manner/method; Chronicle did not retain right to control means or supervise performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. El Palmar Taxi, 297 Ga. App. 121 (control test for employer liability)
- Grange Indemnity Ins. Co. v. BeavEx, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 601 (independent-contractor designation and indicia supporting non-liability)
- Ward v. DirecTV LLC, 342 Ga. App. 69 (distinguishing control of results from control of manner/time)
- Stubbs Oil Co. v. Price, 357 Ga. App. 606 (delivery driver held independent contractor; no vicarious liability)
- Thompson v. Club Group, 251 Ga. App. 356 (courier held independent contractor where defendant did not supervise or provide benefits)
- Hampton v. Macon News Printing Co., 64 Ga. App. 150 (older precedent; not binding here and lacked an independent-contractor agreement)