As noted in the previous section, many injuries to employees can occur on a farm. This section discusses the employer's potential liability when an employee injures a third party (whether on or off-farm) or a fellow employee. This is known as the doctrine of respondeat superior--a principle in tort law that makes a master liable for the wrongs of a servant.
Employers are not responsible for all wrongs of their employees. Rather, an employer only is liable for an injury to a third person if the employee was indeed an employee (and not an independent contractor1) at the time of the employee's injury and the employee caused the injury while performing work within the scope of his/her employment or in the line of duty.
The question of whether an employer/employee relationship exists is based on the facts of each individual case. An agreement disclaiming an employment relationship is not enough to show that a relationship did not exist.2 Instead, the actual practice between the employer and the employee will determine the relationship. A number of evidentiary factors may be taken into account, including "the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required in the work to be done, and who provides the tools, materials, or equipment."3 Of these, the right to control (not actual control) is the most important.4
Even if the injury is determined to be caused by an employee, an employer is not liable if the employee was engaged in an activity outside the scope of employment.5 An activity is outside the scope of employment if it occurs without the employer's direction or acquiescence. An employee is acting within his/her scope of employment if the employee "is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is employed and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time to do that thing."6 A common example is the employee that causes a traffic accident while making a delivery of farm produce to the market. If the accident occurred on the way to/from the market, the activity would be within the scope of employment. On the other hand, if the employee was on personal detour to another town for personal reasons unrelated to employer's business, the accident would be "outside the scope of employment," and the employer would not be liable. Of course, in either case, the employee would be personally liable for their negligence.
An employer is not liable for the negligent actions of one employee against another employee unless the employer knew, or had reason to know, that the negligent employee should not have been hired or should not have remained in his/her employ, or the employer did not provide the proper means for the negligent employee to carry-out his/her duties. An employer is responsible for ensuring that all employees follow health and safety procedures. An employer cannot shield itself from liability by delegating this responsibility to supervisors. If the employer has delegated health and safety duties to a supervisor or foreman, the supervisor's negligent actions causing injuries to a fellow employee may be imputed to the employer.
_________________________
1 Independent contractors are hired to achieve a certain result, but how that result is achieved is not controlled by the employer. Generally, employees of independent contractors may not recover damages from the employer of the independent contractor for their personal injuries. Whether a person is an independent contractor, or an employee, depends on the facts of each case.
2 Tansey v. Robinson, 24 Ill.App. 2d 227, 234 (1960).
3 Yellow Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 238 Ill.App.3d 650, 652 (1992) (Yellow Cab II).
4 Id.
5 Dietzen v. Industrial Board of Illinois, 279 Ill. 11, 16-17 (1917).
6 Id. at 17.