Webster v. Mississippi Publishers Corp.
571 So. 2d 946 | Mississippi Supreme Court | 1990
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A newspaper publisher hired an independent hauler to deliver newspapers on a fixed schedule. The hauler caused an accident injuring someone. The court ruled the publisher was not liable because it only controlled when deliveries happened, not how the hauler did the work. This matters to subcontractors because it shows that specifying deadlines and schedules alone doesn't make someone your employee—you need to avoid controlling the day-to-day methods and means of work.
Key Takeaways
- •Specify delivery dates and deadlines in your contracts without dictating how the work gets done—this protects you from liability for the other party's negligence
- •Document that the other party controls their own methods, equipment, and work processes to establish independent contractor status
- •Results-based contracts (pay for completion, not hourly supervision) strengthen the independent contractor relationship and limit your exposure
Control of result does not make one an employer under independent contractor law.
Frequently Asked Question
If I hire a subcontractor and they cause an injury, am I responsible?
Not necessarily. If your contract specifies what needs to be done and when, but lets the subcontractor control how they do it, you're generally not liable for their negligence. The key is avoiding day-to-day control over their methods and equipment. Document that they work independently.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.