The supreme court affirmed a plaintiff’s verdict in a workplace electrocution-injury case, holding that the jury’s verdict about the right of control was supported by sufficient evidence: “Los Compadres’s managing owner, Raul Medina, testified at his pretrial deposition that Torres was our employee,’ but at trial he said he was mistaken about that because Los Compadres had reported Torres’s compensation using 1099 forms instead of W-2 forms, which suggests he was an independent contractor. But Medina also testified that Los Compadres ‘hired’ Torres and paid him a salary to work as the project manager and supervisor—a position responsible for soliciting bids, making sure the job was run timely, making sure all materials arrived at the worksite, and confirming that the contractors completed their jobs before Los Compadres paid them. He acknowledged that Los Compadres authorized Torres to sign the project’s building permit as the ‘owner’ or ‘agent of the owner.’ And Los Compadres’s own expert witness testified, based on his review of the documents, that Torres ‘was apparently an employee of’ and ‘acting on behalf of’ Los Compadres.” No. 19-0643 (March 12, 2021).

The post Right of control? appeared first on 600 Hemphill.