## Facts

- William Santiago was injured when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by Frank Frausto on April 20, 1986.
- At the time of the collision, Frausto was delivering the Sunday edition of Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.’s (PNI) newspaper on his assigned route.
- Frausto delivered newspapers under a written “Delivery Agent Agreement” drafted by PNI that labeled him an “independent contractor.”
- The agreement and practice reflected independent-contractor features: Frausto supplied his own vehicle, paid his own expenses, received no employee benefits, had no payroll tax withholding, was paid per paper, could deliver other publications, and could use substitutes for up to 25% of delivery days.
- The agreement and practice also reflected potential employer control: PNI imposed early-morning delivery deadlines, used route managers to handle complaints and direct where papers should be placed when requested, monitored service quality, and retained the ability to terminate the arrangement on short notice for unsatisfactory performance.
- Santiago sued Frausto and PNI, alleging Frausto was PNI’s employee/agent and that PNI was vicariously liable for Frausto’s negligence; Santiago also asserted direct negligence theories against PNI (e.g., negligent selection or supervision).

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence favorably to Santiago, the employee-versus-independent-contractor question was so clear that PNI was entitled to summary judgment, or whether the evidence created a triable issue under Arizona’s right-to-control test.
2. Whether PNI could be held directly liable for negligent selection or supervision of Frausto even if Frausto was an independent contractor.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that the evidence regarding PNI’s right to control the details of Frausto’s delivery work allowed more than one reasonable inference about Frausto’s status.
- The Court reversed summary judgment for PNI on vicarious liability and remanded for further proceedings because worker status was a fact question for the trier of fact on this record.
- The Court left undisturbed the disposition rejecting Santiago’s direct negligence theories against PNI, finding the record insufficient to support independent liability for selection or supervision.

## Legal Principles

- In tort vicarious-liability cases, Arizona applies the right-to-control test: the central inquiry is whether the alleged employer has the right to control or supervise the details of the physical work.
- Worker status is assessed through multiple factors (control over details, distinct business, customary supervision, skill, who supplies tools/instrumentalities, duration, payment method, whether the work is part of the alleged employer’s regular business, and the parties’ expressed intent), with no single factor controlling.
- A contractual label stating “independent contractor” is relevant but not conclusive; courts examine the full factual relationship.
- Summary judgment is improper when the evidence on worker status is susceptible to more than one reasonable inference; in that circumstance, the issue is ordinarily for the jury.
- Direct negligence claims against a contracting entity (such as negligent selection or supervision) require evidence of the entity’s own breach of duty; use of an independent-contractor delivery model alone does not establish such negligence.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Santiago’s vicarious-liability claim against PNI because the evidence of PNI’s delivery requirements and operational oversight could support a finding that Frausto was an employee under the right-to-control test, making summary judgment inappropriate, while affirming the rejection of Santiago’s separate direct negligence theories for lack of supporting evidence.


Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 164 Ariz. 505, 794 P.2d 138 (Ariz. 1990)