employed by a separate company ( a small business called Fly Fellas Logistics ). Through its DSP program , Amazon provides guidance and training to individuals ( like the owner of Fly Fellas Logistics ) who set up small delivery companies that directly employ drivers to deliver Amazon ’ s packages .
Despite this separate legal relationship , Plaintiff argued that Amazon was both directly and vicariously liable for the young boy ’ s injuries . In proving direct liability , Plaintiff demonstrated how Amazon ’ s lack of safety training regarding residential neighborhoods where children were likely to be present , and unreasonable expectations regarding delivery volumes and times contributed to driver negligence . To establish vicarious liability , Plaintiff made an agency argument — showing how Amazon ’ s exercise of extensive control over drivers blurred the line between independent contractor and employee . Critically , the contract Amazon had with the DSP contained pages of policies , procedures , and guidelines that the DSP was required to follow if it wanted to continue to deliver for Amazon . And through testimony , Plaintiff was able to establish Amazon ’ s extensive control over onboarding , training , monitoring , and discipling of DSP drivers .
After a short 4-day trial , the jury awarded Plaintiff $ 16 million in past and future pain and suffering and $ 206,000 for past medical expenses . Liability was apportioned 85 % to Amazon , 10 % to the DSP and its driver , and 5 % to a neighbor who was supposed to be supervising the child . You can view the opening and closing here : Video of Bradfield , et al . v . Amazon Logistics , et al . - Trial - 08 / 12 / 24 to 08 / 15 / 24 - Courtroom View Network ( cvn . com ) and Joseph Fried also recently appeared on Trial Lawyer Nation to discuss the case : Joe Fried — $ 16.2 Million Verdict in Pioneering Case against Amazon ( triallawyernation . com ).
Our Agency Case
Recently , using a similar strategy , our firm was able to obtain a multimillion-dollar settlement against a set of healthcare logistics companies . The case , Estate of Sara Correa-Ojeda v . BeavEx , Inc . et al ., Case No . RG18931535 ( Alameda County ), was a hard-fought multiyear battle where — as you might expect — we had to fight for every scrap of paper we received , including refusal by one of the defendants to produce records or knowledgeable PMQs until the court compelled them to .
The case involved a 47-year-old woman who was struck and killed in a crosswalk as she walked to work . The driver had just left a CVS location in Fremont , California . When we took the case , it wasn ’ t immediately clear who the target defendants should be . We knew we had to look beyond the small independent contractor who employed the driver , but the larger contractor ( BeavEx , Inc .) who had hired the independent contractor had gone bankrupt . We also named a company whose drugs were in the delivery van . But it was only through discovery that we learned about the healthcare logistics companies involved .
These logistics companies , who perform last-mile delivery for pharmaceutical and medical supply companies , primarily use small independent contractors ( often drivers who are instructed to form companies ) to perform their deliveries . Independent contractors are a way to not only avoid paying benefits and overtime , but also to reduce liability exposure . The liability for driver negligence , they argue , rests exclusively with the small independent contractor — a “ we get all the benefits , while be being exposed to none of the liabilities ” scheme . Through discovery and depositions , we chipped away at this shell game to establish that sufficient control was retained and exercised by them to make the driver their agent .
Agency Under California Law
Under California law , whether an agency relationship exists is a matter of the “ right to control .” Or as the California Supreme Court in Malloy v . Fong ( 1951 ) 37 Cal . 2d 356 , 370 ( cited in CACI 3705 (“ Existence of ‘ Agency ’ Relationship Disputed ”)) held :
“ Whether a person performing work for another is an agent or an independent contractor depends primarily upon whether the one for whom the work is done has the legal right to control the activities of the alleged agent . It is not essential that the right of control be exercised or that there be actual supervision of the work of the agent . The existence of the right of control and supervision establishes the existence of an agency relationship .”
Under the “ right to control ” standard ,” an agency relationship exists when the principal can control the “ manner and means ” by which a job is performed . See Patterson v . Domino ’ s Pizza , LLC ( 2014 ) 60 Cal . 4th 474 , 492-493 (“ an agency relationship exists where the principal dictates , not just the desired result of the enterprise , but also ‘ the manner and means ’ by which such result is achieved ”). This is consistent with the standard that exists in Georgia and what was proven in Bradfield — that Amazon controlled the time , manner and method of how deliveries were performed by independent contractors . See , e . g ., Canjus Contrs . V . Peachtree Prop . Sub , LLC ( 2021 ) 360 Ga . App . 390 , 394 (“ Under longstanding Georgia law , the true test to be applied in determining whether the relationship of the parties under a contract for the performance of labor is that of employer and employee , or employer and independent contractor , lies in whether the contract gives , or the employer assumes , the right to control the time , manner and method of
The Trial Lawyer 19