## Facts

- Toto Brothers, Inc. subcontracted to supply and deliver landfill to a construction site in Edison, New Jersey.
- Luigi Caicco, doing business as “C. L. Trucking,” owned and operated his own dump truck, maintained it at his own expense, and hauled landfill for Toto.
- Caicco was generally paid by the load, but was sometimes paid by the hour.
- Toto’s hauling operation used both Toto-owned trucks driven by Toto employees and additional “hired trucks,” including Caicco’s.
- Toto personnel loaded landfill at Toto’s sand pit and directed drivers at the job site regarding where to unload.
- Toto set the daily work schedule, including start time, lunch period, and end time, and provided operational directions such as routes and dumping locations.
- From December 1967 until his death, roughly 85% of Caicco’s work was for Toto; during the six months before his death he worked elsewhere only when Toto had no work.
- The relationship was day-to-day, and both sides could end it at will (Toto could “fire” him; he could “quit”).
- On June 6, 1968, Caicco was electrocuted when his dump truck contacted overhead high-tension wires while delivering landfill, and he died.
- His widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits from Toto; an administrative judge found an employment relationship and awarded benefits, but reviewing courts reversed before further review.

## Issues

1. Whether Caicco was an “employee” of Toto or an independent contractor for purposes of New Jersey workers’ compensation coverage at the time of the fatal accident.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment that had dismissed the compensation petition.
- The court held that Caicco was an employee of Toto for workers’ compensation purposes.
- The court reinstated the administrative award of dependency (death) benefits to Caicco’s widow.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey workers’ compensation coverage is construed liberally in favor of including workers within the statutory term “employee.”
- Employee status is determined by the totality of the relationship’s economic reality, not by the parties’ labels or the worker’s use of a trade name.
- The “control test” considers the right to control the manner and means of performing the work; control over schedule, routes, and unloading directions supports employee status.
- The “relative nature of the work” test considers (1) whether the work is an integral part of the alleged employer’s regular business and (2) whether the worker is economically dependent on that business; regular, ongoing work that is central to the employer’s operations supports employee status.
- Ownership of equipment and responsibility for maintenance and operating expenses are relevant but not determinative when the work is integrated into the employer’s operation and subject to meaningful operational control.
- An at-will, day-to-day relationship and the alleged employer’s ability to discharge the worker tend to align with employment rather than an independent contractor undertaking for a defined job.

## Conclusion

The court treated an owner-operator hauling landfill alongside company drivers as an employee because Toto exercised substantial operational control and the hauling work was integral to Toto’s subcontract and a primary source of the worker’s livelihood, requiring workers’ compensation coverage for the fatal accident.


Caicco v. Toto Bros., Inc., 62 N.J. 305, 301 A.2d 143 (N.J. 1973)