## Facts

- Kane Furniture Corporation sold carpeting and advertised “free installation,” but outsourced installation work.
- In 1975, Kane sold its installation operation to Joseph P. Perrone, who thereafter provided installation services through his own business and could use additional installers.
- Perrone worked primarily out of Kane’s St. Petersburg store after a short initial period during which Kane inspected his work, and he assigned jobs to installers such as Kraus.
- Perrone and installers supplied their own tools and trucks, paid their own expenses, carried their own insurance, and were paid by the job (per-yard basis).
- Kane issued Perrone an IRS Form 1099 and provided no employee benefits; Perrone was not required to work exclusively for Kane, and Kane could use other installers.
- On August 6, 1983, Kraus completed two Kane installation jobs, then drove with his helper to a bar and drank for about four hours.
- After drinking, Kraus drove toward Kane’s warehouse so the helper could retrieve his car; Kraus ran a stop sign and collided with the Miranda vehicle, causing the death of Dr. Romulo Miranda’s wife.
- Dr. Miranda, as personal representative of his wife’s estate, sued Kane and Perrone for wrongful death, seeking to impose vicarious liability on Kane for Kraus’s negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether Perrone and Kraus were Kane’s employees (or subemployees) or independent contractors for purposes of respondeat superior liability.
2. Whether, at the time of the collision, Kraus was acting within the scope of any employment or agency relationship that could make Kane vicariously liable.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the trial court erred by determining on summary judgment that Perrone was Kane’s employee and Kraus Kane’s subemployee.
- Applying agency classification factors with emphasis on the right to control the manner and method of work, the court concluded Perrone and Kraus were independent contractors.
- The court vacated the summary judgment for Dr. Miranda and the jury’s verdict and damages award.
- The court remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for Kane because Kane could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of independent contractors under these facts.
- The court also criticized trial rulings admitting excessive emotional testimony and giving improper or inadequate instructions on scope of employment.

## Legal Principles

- Employee-versus-independent-contractor status turns primarily on the alleged principal’s right to control the manner and method of the work, not merely the desired result.
- Factors supporting independent-contractor status include: payment by the job, tax treatment consistent with nonemployee status, lack of employee benefits, provision of one’s own tools and equipment, freedom to work for others, and absence of control over work details.
- A brief initial inspection or probationary period, without continuing control over how work is performed, does not establish an employment relationship.
- Even if a work relationship exists, vicarious liability generally requires that the tortfeasor act within the scope of the work; substantial personal deviation for nonbusiness purposes breaks the connection.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Kane’s carpet installer and the installer’s driver were independent contractors and that the driver’s post-job drinking and personal errand placed him outside any business purpose, requiring judgment for Kane and eliminating respondeat superior liability for the fatal collision.


Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1987)