Knowlton v. Airport Transp. Co., 88-884
| Decision Date | 20 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-884,88-884 |
| Citation | 235 Neb. 96,454 N.W.2d 278 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | Kenneth W. KNOWLTON, Appellant, v. AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION CO., a Nebraska Corporation, Appellee. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Workers' Compensation: Appeal and Error. The findings of fact made by the compensation court after rehearing shall have the same force and effect as a jury verdict in a civil case and will not be set aside unless clearly wrong.
2. Workers' Compensation: Independent Contractor. Control or the right of control is the chief criterion in the determination of whether one acts as an independent contractor.
3. Workers' Compensation: Independent Contractor: Contracts. Where a written contract between the claimant and alleged employer exists, which not only denominates the relationship as that of independent contractor but also describes that kind of relationship, and nothing in the manner of performance by the parties is inconsistent with the relationship described, then the independent contractor is, as a matter of law, bound by the contract and is not to be deemed an employee within the meaning of the workers' compensation statutes.
Michael F. Gutowski, Omaha, for appellant.
Patrick B. Donahue, of Cassem, Tierney, Adams, Gotch & Douglas, Omaha, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Workers' Compensation Court. The compensation court denied benefits to the plaintiff. We affirm.
Plaintiff, Kenneth W. Knowlton, was involved in an auto accident on November 1, 1985, while driving a passenger van owned by defendant, Airport Transportation Co., but leased to Knowlton. Knowlton filed a petition in the Workers' Compensation Court, alleging that the accident occurred while he was employed by defendant. A single judge awarded compensation to Knowlton. Pursuant to defendant's application for rehearing, a three-judge panel dismissed Knowlton's petition, finding that he was an independent contractor. Knowlton appeals to this court, assigning as error the panel's finding that he was an independent contractor rather than defendant's employee.
Knowlton began driving a van for defendant in January 1982. At that time he was paid an hourly wage, and Social Security and income taxes were withheld from his pay. In May 1983, Knowlton entered into a lease agreement with defendant. In August 1985, Knowlton entered into another lease agreement which was substantially similar to the first lease agreement. This lease agreement was in effect when Knowlton was involved in the accident. The agreement provided that defendant would lease a van to Knowlton for $225 per week. The agreement also provided:
8. The Second Party [Knowlton] (and all other drivers operating said limousine) shall perform this Agreement as an independent contractor and nothing herein contained shall be construed to be inconsistent with this relationship or status and nothing in this Agreement shall in any way be construed to constitute the Second Party (and all other drivers operating said limousine) as the agent, employee, or representative of the First Party [defendant]. As an independent contractor, the Second Party (and all other drivers operating said limousine) shall pay his own FICA, withholding, and such other taxes as may be required in prescribed form and shall file Schedule C-1, Self-Employment Tax Form, with his federal income tax return.
The conversion to a lease basis was prompted by a desire to provide the drivers with an incentive to earn more money by getting more contracts and making more runs. Under the plan, defendant made an agreement with several Omaha hotels to transport their guests from the airport to the hotel and from the hotel to the airport. Defendant billed the hotels monthly on a per room basis. When payments from the hotels were received, defendant deducted lease payments and dispersed the balance to the drivers based on the number of runs made.
Defendant retained ownership of the van, as required by Public Service Commission (PSC) regulations. The van was registered and licensed with the PSC and could not be used to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omaha World-Herald v. Dernier, WORLD-HERAL
...relationship described, then the independent contractor is not deemed to be an employee as a matter of law. Knowlton v. Airport Transportation Co., 235 Neb. 96, 454 N.W.2d 278 (1990). The existence of such a contractual provision " 'must ... be considered and may be of prime importance,' " ......
-
Larson By and Through Larson v. Hometown Communications, Inc.
...statutes.' ' Anthony v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., 239 Neb. 404, 408, 476 N.W.2d 559, 562 (1991) (quoting Knowlton v. Airport Transportation Co., 235 Neb. 96, 454 N.W.2d 278 (1990)). Accord Stephens v. Celeryvale Transport, Inc., 205 Neb. 12, 286 N.W.2d 420 In Anthony, Knowlton, and Stephens, the......
-
Way v. Hendricks Sodding and Landscaping, Inc.
...§ 48-185 (Reissue 1988); Fenster v. Clark Bros. Sanitation, 235 Neb. 336, 455 N.W.2d 169 (1990); Knowlton v. Airport Transportation Co., 235 Neb. 96, 454 N.W.2d 278 (1990); Brazee v. City of Lincoln, 234 Neb. 680, 452 N.W.2d 529 (1990). The issue in regard to causation of an injury or disab......
-
Anthony v. Pre-Fab Transit Co., PRE-FAB
...286 N.W.2d 420 (1979); Voycheske v. Osborn, 196 Neb. 510, 244 N.W.2d 74 (1976). We further said, in Knowlton v. Airport Transportation Co., 235 Neb. 96, 99, 454 N.W.2d 278, 280 (1990), quoting from Stephens v. Celeryvale Transport, Inc., supra, "[w]here a written contract between the claima......
-
Employment Status
...420, 424 (1979). 48. Hemmerling v. Happy Cab Co., 247 Neb. 919, 927, 530 N.W.2d 916, 921 (1995). See also Knowlton v. Airport Transp. Co., 235 Neb. 96, 99, 454 N.W.2d 278, 280 (1990); Spulak v. Estep, 216 Neb. 523, 526, 344 N.W.2d 475, 477 (1984); Stephens v. Celeryvale Transp., Inc., 205 N......