## Facts

- Chuck Rohr owned Canary Enterprises, Inc., which provided hot-air and cold-air balloon advertising for clients.
- Rohr contracted with Donovan Entertainment, Inc. (a Blockbuster franchise owner) to provide balloon advertising during a Tallahassee festival weekend for a flat fee of $1,500 “to cover everything.”
- During the weekend, Rohr displayed Blockbuster balloons at specified locations, including over a Blockbuster store and later at a college baseball game at a Donovan employee’s request.
- After taking down the balloon following the game, Rohr drove back toward his motel and turned into the motel parking lot, pulling into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
- The collision caused one death and two severe injuries.
- The injured parties and survivors sued Rohr and sought to hold Donovan (and related Blockbuster entities) vicariously liable, alleging Rohr acted as Donovan’s agent/employee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Donovan, concluding Rohr was an independent contractor; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Rohr was Donovan’s employee/agent rather than an independent contractor for purposes of vicarious liability.
2. Whether Donovan could be held vicariously liable for Rohr’s negligent driving after completing balloon-display work associated with the festival weekend.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Donovan.
- The court held Rohr was an independent contractor as a matter of law and not Donovan’s employee/agent at the time of the accident.
- Donovan therefore had no vicarious liability for Rohr’s negligent driving.

## Legal Principles

- Employee/agent versus independent-contractor status is determined under the multi-factor test in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 as adopted by Florida precedent; no single factor is dispositive.
- The extent of the principal’s right to control the details and manner of the work is the most important consideration; specifying desired results (including where and when work occurs) is generally insufficient by itself to establish an employment/agency relationship.
- Factors supporting independent-contractor status include the worker’s operation of a distinct business, provision of tools/instrumentalities, a limited-duration engagement, and lump-sum payment for a discrete job.
- A prior vicarious-liability case involving greater principal control, a longer-term relationship, and work central to the principal’s business was distinguishable on materially different facts.
- Summary judgment is proper where undisputed facts, assessed under the § 220 factors, permit only one reasonable conclusion about the relationship’s legal status.

## Conclusion

Because Donovan’s control was limited to specifying locations and timing for balloon displays, and Rohr performed the work through his separate advertising business using his own equipment for a short, flat-fee engagement, Rohr was an independent contractor and Donovan could not be held vicariously liable for the accident.


Buitrago v. Rohr, 672 So. 2d 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996)