Question

Julaju drove a taxi on a part-time basis for El PalmarTaxi, Inc., usually only on Sundays and sometimes on Mondays. He worked an unrelated job on the remaining days of the week. Julaju was given certain rules to follow-dress neatly, do not allow smoking in the car, do not allow passengers in front unless absolutely necessary, and ask the passengers to wear their seatbelts. All cars driven for El Palmar had to be white and display the El Palmar logo. Julaju had obtained his taxi license from the city by filling out an application and giving it and the applicable fee to El Palmar.Julaju further testified that when he was driving a taxi, he did not have a set schedule and could work when he wanted and for as long as he wanted. While working, he drove either a car provided by El Palmarora car owned by another taxi driver. To obtain a fare from El Palmar, Julaju would call the office to let them know he was working and then wait for them to give him an address to pick someone up. While he was waiting, Julaju was free to look for his own fares. In the case in question, El Palmar sent Julaju to pick up Maria Lopez and her children. Julaju got into an accident, and Lopez filed suit with El Palmar to recover damages. El Palmar argued it was not liable because Julaju was an independent contractor.

[ Lopez v. El Palmar Taxi, Inc. , 297 Ga. App. 121; 676 S.E.2d460 (2009).]

Do you think the court ruled that Julaju was an employee or independent contractor?

Answer 1

Do you think the court ruled that Julaju was an employee or an independent contractor?

Answer:-

The court ruled that Julaju was an independent contractor because he drove taxis under the contract with the el palmar that describe him as an independent contractor. The reason why the court ruled the decision in the favor of el palmar because as per the agreement with the el palmar he was just an independent contractor and the contract imposed on him was just to comply with federal laws and local laws requiring business permits and certificates to refrain from operating under company’s name in any jurisdiction where the vehicle could not be legally operated.

In this case, it is clearly mentioned that the el Parmar don’t have any control or restrictions over the time, manner and method of Julaju’s work so its means that he was free to work when and for how long as he wanted to work for example these two sentences worked as an evidence for the el palmar:-

· He was not able to accept the el Parmar fares he could always obtain his own fares.

· Second he could work anywhere and for any company, he wants to work.

The fact that the cars he drove displayed el palmar logo and the fact that he received the calls from the el palmar clients is not enough or sufficient to create an employer-employee relationship.

The car drove on the day of accident was not owned by el palmar. Thus, el palmar cannot be held liable for Julaju actions.