In the case Evers v. R. Humr Constr. Co., Inc., 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2018-G-0184, 2020-Ohio-2891, an Ohio appellate court held that the right to control performance is not dispositive as to whether someone is considered a contractor or employee.
In this case, a township needed to replace a culvert and hired a sole proprietor to perform excavation work using their own excavation equipment. In the course of the project replacing the culvert, a worker died. The worker’s estate sued the sole proprietor, and the sole proprietor raised the defense of immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744. The defense would only work if the sole proprietor was determined to be a contractor.
The Ohio appellate court held that while the right to control performance is the most important factor in determining whether someone is an employee or contractor for the purposes of determining political subdivision tort immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, it is not dispositive and that other factors need to be considered such as who provides the equipment.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.