FLORIDA PUBLISHING COMPANY
v.
BERNARD LOURCEY, A MINOR, BY NEXT FRIEND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Publishing Company leased a newspaper route to an independent contractor, A. P. Seig, who was injured while performing route duties. The court held that despite provisions in the lease that purported to restrict Seig's autonomy, the contract clearly established an independent contractor relationship, reversing a judgment against the publisher.
The contract established an independent contractor relationship between Seig and Florida Publishing Company. Provisions regarding termination, circulation promotion, and sample distribution did not deprive Seig of his independent contractor status because they did not hamper his free agency in means and method of performance.
“Seig 'shall at all times occupy the position of an independent contractor and control all ways, means, method of conveyance, and distribution relating to the proper performance and completion of the agreement. The corporation looks only to the party of the third part and said carrier to obtain the desired results as herein set out.'”
The explicit language of the contract establishing independent contractor status and the publisher's right to control only results, not means.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Publishing Company leased Newspaper Route 738 to A. P. Seig under a written agreement requiring Seig to purchase and deliver newspapers to cus…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Plaintiff in error leased to A. P. Seig Newspaper Route 738 under a written lease agreement whereby Seig was required to purchase of Florida Publishing Company and deliver to its customers certain daily newspapers. Seig used an automobile to perform his part of the contract and while assisting him in this, Bernard Lourcey was thrown against a telephone pole and injured. In a common-law action against Florida Publishing Company, he secured a judgment for personal injuries and that judgment is here for review on writ of error.
Several questions are argued but they all turn on that of whether or not under his contract Seig was at the time of the accident an independent contractor or occupied a master-servant relation to the defendant. The making of the contract, its terms, and the fact of the injury are not disputed. The point of clevage is in the interpretation of the contract.
The contract in terms provides that Seig “shall at all times occupy the position of an independent contractor and control all ways, means, method of conveyance, and distribution relating to the proper performance and completion of the agreement. The corporation looks only to the party of the third part and said carrier to obtain the desired results as herein set out.”
These provisions were ample to make Seig an independent contractor if they were not to all intents and purposes vitated by other provisions of the contract or the practice of tire parties under it. Counsel for defendant in error contends that both the terms of the contract and the method of its execution deprived Seig of his independent contractor relation and that since that relation is in dispute, it became one for the jury to determine.
The parts of the contract relied on to deprive it of its independent carrier relation are the provisions with refer*769ence to its termination, promoting the circulation oí the corporation’s newspapers, the free distribution of sample copies and the retention of subscription lists from the carrier including the practice of the carrier in the performance of these provisions.
If any of these provisions were such as to hamper or deprive Seig of his free agency in the means and method of performing his part of the contract, they would deprive it of its independent contractor relation but on careful inspection, we do not think they do so. The provision with reference to termination can be exercised only in the event Seig fails to perform the conditions imposed on him. In the matter of promoting the circulation, he is required to do nothing inconsistent with his duties in performing the main contract and this is the case with reference to the other alleged inconsistent duties of which he complains.
We find nothing in any of these requirements or the practice under them to deprive the contract of its independent character. It was in every respect lawful and normally without danger to others and Seig was subject to the will of the corporation only as to results of his work and he was permitted to perform it according to his own methods. He could employ whom he pleased, fire them at his pleasure, and could not be questioned as to his method of performance or have his contract cancelled so long as he performed.
Having reached this conclusion, it follows that the judgment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Laurenne A. Carson, 327 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…gligence, § 9; Tims v. Orange State Oil Co., Fla.App.2nd, 1964, 161 So. 2d 844. One who hires an independent contractor is not ordinarily liable for injuries sustained by that contractor’s employees in their work. Florida Pub. Co. v. Lourcey, 1940, 141 Fla. 767, 193 So. 847. There is a duty to warn employees of an independent contractor of potential danger when the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition of his premises. Somers v. Meyers, Fla.App.1st, 1965, 171 So. 2d 598. Howev…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Mrs. Mary Kendall, 88 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1956)…dit the carrier for shortages of papers, and would credit Molesworth “for subscriptions paid in advance * * The appellant asserts that the facts in the instant case so closely resemble those with which we dealt in Florida Publishing Co. v. Lourcey, 141 Fla. 767, 193 So. 847, that the present controversy may be determined in its favor on authority of that decision. The appellant also insists that the pivotal question is one of law notwithstanding the circuit judge’s action in submitting the issue of Moleswo…
-
Peairs v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 132 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…e Court of Florida in two cases has held that newspaper carriers working under written contracts substantially similar to those involved in the instant case were independent contractors and not employees. Florida Publishing Company v. Lourcey, 1940, 141 Fla. 767, 193 So. 847, and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Kendall, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 276. Accordingly, in the consideration of the matters raised on this appeal, we assume and hold that the newspaper carriers here bore the relation of independent contract…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence