- 11 -
Supp. 627, 630 (E.D.S.C. 1948)).
In this case, the drivers were required to deliver the loads
to a certain place at a certain time, and the drivers chose the
routes and the speeds that would take them to that destination
point by that time. Petitioner was not in the cabs of the trucks
supervising every movement of the drivers, directing which routes
to take or controlling the speeds at which to drive. Nor did he
control which hours the drivers drove or rested. Petitioner did
not direct the intimate details of the drivers' work, because the
drivers' work requires little supervision. Though petitioner was
not required to supervise closely the drivers hour by hour, the
right to control was not lacking. See Air Terminal Cab, Inc. v.
United States, 478 F.2d at 580.
Petitioner exercised control by requiring the drivers to
call him daily on the cellular phones, which he provided, to
inform him of their locations and progress. Petitioner
controlled which loads the drivers would haul and the prices
charged for the transportation of those loads. Petitioner
determined whether repairs to the trucks should be performed on
the road or deferred until the driver returned the truck to
petitioner's business location. On this record, petitioner
exercised the necessary control over the drivers' activities
consistent with an employer-employee relationship. See Avis Rent
A Car Systems, Inc. v. United States, 503 F.2d at 430; Air
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011