Byrd v. EBB FARMS, 81A01-0207-CV-250.

• Docket Nº: No. 81A01-0207-CV-250.
• Citation: 796 N.E.2d 747
• Case Date: September 26, 2003
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

796 N.E.2d 747

John L. BYRD and Deanna J. Byrd, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. E.B.B. FARMS, Robert Caldwell and Randy Schuck, Appellees-Defendants.

No. 81A01-0207-CV-250.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

September 26, 2003.

David W. Stone IV, Stone Law Office & Legal Research, Anderson, IN, Richard E. Federico, Federico Law Offices, Hagerstown, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.

Stephen E. Schrumpf, McNeely, Stephenson, Thopy & Harrold, Shelbyville, IN, Attorney for Appellees.

OPINION

RILEY, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants-Plaintiffs, John E. Byrd and Deanna J. Byrd (collectively, "the Byrds"), appeal the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants,¹ E.B.B. Farms (E.B.B.) and Robert Caldwell² (Caldwell).

We affirm.

ISSUES

The Byrds raise one issue, which we restate as follows: whether the trial court erred in determining that the business relationship between E.B.B., Caldwell and Schuck was one of farming on shares, which is a landlord-tenant relationship.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 20, 2001, the Byrds filed a complaint in Union County, Indiana, against E.B.B., Caldwell, and Schuck. In their complaint, the Byrds alleged that they owned a tree farm, which is adjacent to farmland owned by E.B.B., managed by Caldwell, and farmed by Schuck. The Byrds alleged that in the spring of 2000, Schuck, at the direction and with the concurrence of Caldwell, sprayed herbicide on E.B.B. farmland, known as E.B.B.—3. The complaint further argued that the herbicide was sprayed at a time when the wind velocity was great; therefore, the excess herbicide was blown onto the Byrds' tree farm and damaged most of their nursery stock.

On April 16, 2001, E.B.B. and Caldwell filed their answer to the Byrds' complaint. In their answer, E.B.B. and Caldwell denied the allegations of negligence and asserted comparative fault and failure to mitigate damages by the Byrds as defenses. Additionally, E.B.B. and Caldwell claimed that the damage was caused by the actions of other property owners.

On January 8, 2002, E.B.B. and Caldwell filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 20, 2002, E.B.B. and Caldwell filed their Motion to Strike Brief and Affidavit of Plaintiffs In Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 21, 2002, the Byrds filed their response to E.B.B. and Caldwell's Motion for Summary Judgment.

On February 26, 2002, a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment was held. On April 24, 2002, the trial court granted E.B.B. and Caldwell's Motion for Summary Judgment. On that same date, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which state, in pertinent part:

Findings of Fact

1. [The Byrds'] own property in Union County, Indiana, on which the Byrds raise and sell trees.

2. E.B.B. Farms is located in Union County, Indiana, and a portion of E.B.B.'s property adjoins the Byrd Tree Farm.

3. Defendant Caldwell manages E.B.B., including the property generally known as [E.B.B.—3] situated adjacent to the Byrd Tree Farm.

4. Schuck farms the E.B.B. [farmland] next to the Byrd Tree Farm.

5. Mr. Caldwell does not supervise Mr. Schuck's farming operation.

6. E.B.B. and Mr. Schuck had verbal and written agreements providing that farming profits from [E.B.B.—3] would be divided equally with half of the profits going to E.B.B., and half of the profits going to Mr. Schuck.

7. Mr. Schuck is compensated when he takes grain to Cincinnati, [Ohio] where he sells it; half of the receipts go to E.B.B., and half of the receipts go to Mr. Schuck.

8. [E.B.B.] and [Caldwell] do not provide worker's compensation insurance for [Schuck].

9. [E.B.B.] and [Caldwell] do not provide any health insurance for [Schuck].

10. [E.B.B.] and [Caldwell] do not provide insurance for any of [Schuck's] farm equipment.

11. [E.B.B.] supplies the land, and [Schuck] provides the farm equipment and labor.

12. [E.B.B.] pays one-half of the cost of the chemicals sprayed on the crops, and [Schuck] pays one-half.

13. [E.B.B.] and [Caldwell] do not pay [Schuck] for applying the chemicals.

14. [Schuck] provides his own farming equipment.

15. [Schuck] provides for repairs and maintenance of all the farm equipment he uses, other than a weed cutter that is maintained by E.B.B. employees.

16. [E.B.B.] does not provide fuel for operation of farm equipment; [Schuck] purchases his own fuel.

17. [Caldwell] and the owners of [E.B.B.] do not consider [Schuck] to be an employee of [E.B.B.].

18. [Schuck] considers himself a tenant renting E.B.B. [farmland]; he does not consider himself an employee of E.B.B.

19. [Schuck] does not have his farming methods approved by [Caldwell].

20. [Caldwell] does not make any decisions regarding the [E.B.B.—3] farm.

21. [Caldwell] was in Florida from October, 1999, until sometime in May, 2000. In the performance of his duties, [Caldwell] checked in by phone about once a month.

22. [Schuck] makes the farming decisions for the farm known as [E.B.B.—3].

23. [Schuck] decides what crop to grow on the farm each year.

24. [Schuck] believes that he has a free hand to raise the crops he chooses in the manner he chooses on the farm known as [E.B.B.—3].

25. [Schuck] does not consult with [Caldwell] or anyone associated with E.B.B. regarding which fertilizer and herbicide he uses on the [E.B.B.—3] farm.

26. [Schuck] does not consult with [Caldwell] or anyone associated with E.B.B. regarding when to apply fertilizer and herbicides on the [E.B.B.—3] farm 27. [Caldwell] did not authorize [Schuck] to spray any kind of chemical spray in the spring of 2000.

28. [Schuck] might consult with [Caldwell] regarding major purchases, and about selling grain, however, [Caldwell's] policy has always been to allow [Schuck] to make the decisions.

29. [Schuck] has had a chemical applicator's license continuously since licensing was originally required approximately 6 or 8 years ago.

30. [Caldwell] knew that [Schuck] was licensed to apply chemicals at the time [Caldwell] hired [Schuck] to operate the farm known as [E.B.B.—3].

31. [Caldwell] had no knowledge about the chemicals applied to the crops on the [E.B.B.—3] farm in the spring of 2000.

32. [Schuck] decided what chemicals to apply to the crops on the [E.B.B.—3] farm in the spring of 2000.

33. [Schuck] decided what dates to spray the chemicals on [E.B.B.—3] in the spring of 2000.

34. [Schuck] sprayed chemicals on the portion of [E.B.B.—3] that adjoins Byrd's Tree Farm on May 9, 2000, at 6:00 a.m., and on May 11, 2000, at 5:00 a.m.

35. [Schuck] used his own equipment consisting of a tractor and pull-type sprayer to spray the chemicals on the [E.B.B.—3] [farmland] in the spring of 2000.

36. [Schuck] performed and paid for the maintenance on the tractor and sprayer that he used to spray the chemicals on the [E.B.B.—3] [farmland] in the spring of 2000.

37. [Caldwell] has never had a problem with [Schuck] over-spraying chemicals or with wind drift of the chemicals applied by [Schuck].

Conclusions of Law

1. The law is with the Defendants, [E.B.B.] and [Caldwell], and summary judgment in favor of these two (2) Defendants, only, is hereby granted.

2. Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings and other matters of record reveal that there is no genuine issue or dispute as to a material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Barnd v. Borst, 431 N.E.2d 161 (Ind.Ct. App.1982).

3. The issue before the Court is what is the employment relationship, if any, between Defendant [Schuck] and Defendant [E.B.B.].

4. There is no dispute as to the significant underlying facts regarding the employment relationship between Defendant Schuck and E.B.B. Farms. While it is noted that a written contract is purported to exist, it has not been provided to the Court for consideration. Notwithstanding, the parties do not dispute the terms and conditions under which Defendant Schuck farmed [E.B.B.—3]. Accordingly, there appears to be no dispute as to essential elements of the contract, either oral or written.

5. Where the significant underlying facts are undisputed, the Court may properly determine a worker's classification as a matter of law. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1009 (Ind.2001).

6. Landowners and farmers have undertaken crop-share arrangements in Indiana for well over one hundred years. Scott v. Ramsey, 82 Ind. 330 (1882).

7. The question of what legal characterization the relationship between a landowner and farmer in a crop-share arrangement, should be given, appears to be one of first impression in Indiana.

8. The courts of several states have considered this issue and their guidance is sound and instructive. See: Harlan E. Moore Charitable Trust v. United States, 812 F.Supp. 130 (C.D.Ill.1993); Brown v. Snellgrove, 503 So.2d 447 (Fla. App.1987); C.E. Johnson & Co. v. Marsh, 111 Vt. 266, 15 A.2d 577 (Vt. 1940).

9. The relationship between E.B.B. Farms and [Schuck] is clearly one of farming on shares, and that relationship is best characterized as either landlord-tenant. (See: Harlan E. Moore Charitable Trust v. United States, 812 F.Supp. 130 (C.D.Ill.1993); Brown v. Snellgrove, 503 So.2d 447 (Fla.App. 1987)), or as one of principal-independent contractor.

10. Indiana's long-standing rule is that a principal is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind. 2001); Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., 658 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.1995).

11. [The Byrds'] contention that [Schuck] was an employee of [E.B.B.] must be rejected when the undisputed facts are tested by the analysis used by the Court in Moberly, supra and GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001).

12. The factors the Court considered in application of the test set forth by the Indiana Supreme Court were: (1) extent of control over details of the work; (2) occupation or business of the one employed; (3) kind of occupation; (4) skill required; (5) supplier of equipment and tools; (6) method of

...