On page 406 of the text, read the case entitled Coker v. Pershad. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reasons that AAA had no control over the independent contractor's work and thus Pershad was an employee of Five Star, but Five Star (and by extension, Pershad) were independent contractors to AAA. This type of arrangement is not uncommon. Neither are situations where trucking companies (among others) employ individuals who are designated as independent contractors but are trained by the company and have a manual of regulations provided to them which, in essence, controls where they drive, how they drive, how long are the drivers' work breaks, and who can ride in the cab of the truck. Additionally, drivers often wear a company uniform. The artifice of calling someone an independent contractor when the driver actually is not, is no more than an effort to avoid liability for the person's actions on the job and certain regulatory (unemployment insurance; workers compensation, etc.) and tax considerations. Consequently, the situations must be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis to discern the actual status of the individual. Do you agree with the courts reasoning? Why?

Answer:

Follows are the solution to this question.

Explanation:

Yeah, We agree with the North Carolina Court the decision that 5 Stars was an independent consultant. AAA does hire and fir five Stars staff, who may not evaluate all staff to see if their company is fit. they will not. AAA employed 5 Star in the name of the rental agency and was not responsible for its and other businesses. It is an employer, that is a consultant regardless of who determines to work. Decided to hire that work or even the independent contractor the company that had hired an independent contractor. We employ people as they already have the training to do a work, which the organization has completed, this is like recruiting an employment agency. I don't think companies avoid liability.

Read the attached opinion in Burnatoski v Butler Ambulance Service Co - Agency.pdf. One of the issues here was whether or not the city was legally responsible for the acts of a driver working for a separate ambulance company in which the city had only assisted the ambulance company to obtain a federal grant to help pay for the ambulance. Under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, a municipality is immune from claims such as this, unless its employee is the operator of the vehicle. The proceedings indicated that the driver was not a city employee, after which the municipality was dismissed, but the ambulance company and driver remained as defendants. Did the City control or direct the activities of the driver to the extent that the City should be liable for the manner in which he operated the vehicle at the time of the accident? Please advocate for the plaintiff or the defendant and provide the basis for your position.

Police officer placing sign outside a rail station that says 'Waiting Room for White Only.'
© 2012 The Associated Press

This police office is placing a sign outside a rail station. He is enforcing the ruling in

D.C. v. Heller
Plessy v. Ferguson
Marbury v. Madison
Brown v. Board of Education