Thursday, August 4, 2011

Yellow Cab of Reno, Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (Aug. 4, 2011)

Before Douglas, Hardesty and Pickering. Opinion by Hardesty.
After originally denying a petition for writ of mandamus, the Court granted a petition for rehearing to consider the issue of whether a statutorily-recognized independent contractor relationship between a taxicab business and a cab driver (NRS 706.473) prevents liability for the taxicab business sued under a respondeat superior theory of liability. The district court, Hon. Janet Berry, concluded that the nature of the relationship between the taxicab company and the driver was a question of fact for the jury without addressing NRS 706.473, and summarily denied summary judgment. The Court reaffirmed the general rule that it will not consider a writ petition from the denial of summary judgment, stating that it would deny the writ on that basis, but addressed the merits of the petition because it presented an important issue of law. The Court held that while the determination as to whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of respondeat superior liability generally turns on the degree of control the employer exercises over the individual and that this is generally a question for the trier of fact, NRS 706.473 sets forth various administrative requirements for creating an independent contractor relationship in the taxicab company/driver context that have little to do with employer control. The Court concluded that the district court should have considered whether the requirements of the statute had been met, and whether an independent contractor relationship under NRS 706.473 would allow the taxicab company to avoid liability under a respondeat liability theory. Because the district court had failed to consider these issues and instead summarily denied summary judgment, the Court declined to consider the issue in the first instance through the present writ petition. The Court denied the petition but invited the district court to reconsider the propriety of summary judgment based on NRS 706.473. Writ denied. (Megan Starich, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson)