## Facts

- Bruce Goertz delivered the *Daily Oklahoman* and made monthly collections from subscribers, including Mrs. C. L. Murrell.
- During a collection visit on August 27, 1976, Murrell complained that thrown newspapers had damaged her screen door.
- An argument followed; Murrell slapped Goertz, and Goertz struck Murrell, allegedly causing injuries requiring medical care and hospitalization.
- Murrell sued Goertz for assault and battery and sued Oklahoma Publishing Company (OPC) on a respondeat superior theory, seeking $52,500 including punitive damages.
- OPC published the newspaper and contracted with an independent distributor, Russell Westbrook, who hired Goertz as an “independent carrier salesman.”
- OPC had no role in hiring Goertz and had no direct contact with him; Westbrook supervised the carriers.
- Murrell argued Goertz was OPC’s servant either by arrangement between defendants or because OPC’s conduct led subscribers to believe carriers were OPC employees.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record showed a substantial controversy of material fact regarding Goertz’s status (servant/employee versus independent contractor).
2. Whether OPC could be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Goertz’s alleged assault and battery.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for OPC.
- The record showed no material factual dispute that OPC lacked the right to control the physical details of Goertz’s work.
- Because Goertz was an independent contractor (hired by an independent distributor), OPC was not liable under respondeat superior for his alleged tort.
- Murrell’s apparent-servant theory did not create an employment relationship where undisputed facts showed no such relationship.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when the record presents no substantial controversy as to material facts and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once supported, the opponent must produce evidence warranting trial.
- An independent contractor performs services according to the contractor’s own methods and manner, subject only to control as to results.
- The decisive test distinguishing a servant from an independent contractor is the putative employer’s right to control the physical details of the work.
- A principal is generally not vicariously liable for torts committed by an independent contractor absent an applicable exception.
- General business standards (e.g., delivery territories, service requirements, and handling customer contacts) may reflect quality control and do not, without more, establish the right to control day-to-day work methods.

## Conclusion

The court held that OPC’s distribution structure and lack of control over the physical details of Goertz’s work established an independent-contractor relationship as a matter of law, making summary judgment appropriate and defeating vicarious liability for the alleged assault.


Murrell v. Goertz, 597 P.2d 1223 (Okla. Ct. Civ. App. 1979)