Facts Jeff Doughty worked for Beta Land Services, Inc. Doughty received two weeks of mandatory training, after which Beta gave him a computer and required him to be at work between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. every day. His pay was set at a daily rate for ongoing service. Under his employment contract, Beta retained the right to control his schedule and work, and could cancel the contract at any time without liability for breach.

Doughty was bringing supplies from a Beta field office in Lutcher, Louisiana, to the companys main office in Lafayette when his vehicle rear-ended a vehicle driven by Brock Simon. Simon filed a suit in a Louisiana state court against Doughty; his insurer, Farm Bureau Insurance Co.; and Beta. Simon alleged that at the time of the accident Doughty was Betas agent, on a mission for the company, rendering Beta vicariously liable for its agents negligence. Beta argued that Doughty was an independent contractor and that he had not been on a company missionhe had been commuting to the Lafayette office.

The court found that Doughty was an independent contractor and granted Betas motion for a judgment in its favor. Simon appealed.

Issue Was Beta vicariously liable for Doughtys negligence?

Decision Yes. A state intermediate appellate court reversed the trial courts judgment in Betas favor. The appellate court issued a judgment in Simons favor, holding Beta liable for Doughtys actions at the time of the accident.

Reason The appellate court concluded that Doughty was not an independent contractor. The principal factor determining the status of an employment relationship is control over the work. Control by the employer indicates an employer-employee relationship. Here, Beta retained the right to control Doughtys work. This control was evidenced by his required schedule and payment arrangement, and was expressed in the parties employment contract by the stipulation that Beta could cancel it at any time without liability.

At the time of the accident, Doughty was not acting as an independent contractor but was on a mission for Beta. The employer had asked him to go to the companys field office in Lutcher before going to the main office in Lafayette. Doughtys direct performance of a duty imposed by his employer brought his actions within the scope of employment.

In response to the assertion that Doughty was not on a mission for Beta, but on a commute, the court stated, Doughty was not on his way to work. He was already at work, leaving Betas field office and returning to its main office to deposit the extra supplies.

Critical Thinking Legal Environment If the appellate court had upheld the trial courts finding that Doughty was an independent contractor, would he have been liable to Simon? Explain.

What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that the accident in this case had happened during Doughtys drive home after he had dropped off the supplies. Would the result have been different? Discuss.

I need the Critical Thinking and the What if the Facts Were Different questions answered. Thank you!