 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heirs and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Branning v. Hinds Community College District7/1/1999
Tomlinson Avionics with the obligation to take members of the public on flights on behalf of Hinds. Finally, the contracts do not provide Tomlinson Avionics with the obligation to regulate the conduct of pilots who rent hanger space and fly into and out of the airport.
. Beyond the contracts, the affidavits of the President and Vice President of Hinds show that between themselves they intended that their relationship be that of principal and independent contractor. The conduct of the parties was also that of principal and independent contractor. An employer of an independent contractor is not responsible for the torts of the contractor. Blackmon v. Payne, 510 So. 2d 483, 488 (Miss. 1987); Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc., 631 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 1994). The general rule is that the employer of an independent contractor has no vicarious liability for the torts of the independent contractor or for the torts of the independent contractor's employees in the performance of the contract. Mississippi Power Co. v. Brooks, 309 So. 2d 863, 866 (Miss. 1975); Smith v. Jones, 220 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 1969).
. In determining whether a employer -employee or independent contractor relationship existed, especially where third parties are affected, courts are not confined to the terms of the contract, but may look as well to the conduct of the parties. Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc., 631 So. 2d 143, 151 (Miss. 1994); Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Total Care, Inc., 586 So. 2d 834, 838 (Miss. 1991); Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Harrison, 392 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Miss. 1981); Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Logan, 248 Miss. 595, 600, 159 So. 2d 802, 804 (1964). After analyzing the two contracts and examining the facts applicable as "to the conduct of the parties", we hold that the relationship between the two parties is that of independent contractor. Richardson, 631 So. 2d at 151.
. Appellants have shown no duty owed and further no breach of a duty. In finding that Tomlinson was an independent contractor of Hinds, the lower court was correct in granting summary judgment and therefore the remaining issues need not be addressed.
CONCLUSION
. An independent contractor relationship existed between Hinds Community College District and Tomlinson. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court.
. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. PRATHER, C.J. AND COBB, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|