## Facts

- Luc Boissonnault was injured in a collision while riding a motorcycle; his spouse, Leeann Boissonnault, asserted a derivative claim.
- Elizabeth Seeler, a certified public accountant and volunteer member of Bristol Federated Church’s finance committee, performed accounting services for the church.
- At the time of the accident, Seeler was driving to deliver financial records to the church treasurer.
- The Boissonnaults alleged Seeler was negligent and that the church was vicariously liable under respondeat superior because Seeler was acting as the church’s servant/employee.
- The church asserted Seeler was a volunteer who chose her own hours and methods, used independent professional judgment, and was not subject to day-to-day control over how the accounting work was performed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the church, concluding Seeler was an independent contractor; the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an uncompensated volunteer may qualify as a “servant/employee” for purposes of respondeat superior under New Hampshire law.
2. Whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test (including the right-to-control factor), Seeler was an employee/servant or an independent contractor on the undisputed record.
3. Whether any genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on the church’s vicarious liability.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the church.
- The court held that volunteer status does not automatically preclude servant status, but the same totality-of-the-circumstances analysis applies.
- Applying that analysis, the court concluded Seeler was an independent contractor as a matter of law.
- Because Seeler was not a servant/employee, the church could not be held vicariously liable for her alleged negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability under respondeat superior depends on whether the tortfeasor is a servant/employee, assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances test in which the right to control the manner and means of work is central, and no single factor is dispositive.
- A person may be a servant even without compensation; lack of pay does not determine employee/independent-contractor status.
- Directing the desired result (what tasks are needed, where records should be delivered) is insufficient to establish a right to control the manner and means of performance, particularly for skilled professional work.
- Summary judgment is proper when the material facts are not genuinely disputed and those facts require a legal conclusion about status.

## Conclusion

The court held that a volunteer can, in principle, be a servant for respondeat superior purposes, but affirmed judgment for the church because the undisputed facts showed the volunteer CPA performed her services with independent professional discretion and without the church’s right to control the manner and means of her work, making her an independent contractor and defeating vicarious liability.


Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328 (N.H. 1994)