executing the work , as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract ”).
How Agency Was Established
Using CACI 3705 and the “ right to control ” standard as our guide , we drafted targeted discovery and fought through layer upon layer of corporate speak to developed strong evidence of the elaborate control exerted over the delivery process by these companies . As in Bradfield , there were extensive policies and procedures and guidelines that drivers were required to follow . Failure to follow these rules resulted in discipline or termination of the relationship . And these companies could control driver ’ s schedules , routes , route sequencing , and the vehicles used ; they could insist on the firing of drivers ; they could communicate directly and daily with drivers to change or prioritize routes ; and they conducted regular safety audits and required strict compliance with federal regulations around “ chain of custody ” and “ proof of delivery ” for scheduled drugs .
In many ways , agency is stronger against healthcare logistics companies than it is against Amazon . Amazon chooses to provide guidance on driver training and insists on protocols as a matter of business preference . But given that there are strict federal and state regulations related to the transport of scheduled drugs that healthcare logistics companies must follow , they must retain control and supervise drivers , conduct audits , ensure proper driver hiring and training — not as a matter of preference , but as a matter of federal and state law . And under California ’ s regulated-hirer exception , these regulations cannot be circumvented by hiring an independent contractor . See Secci v . United Independant Taxi
Drivers , Inc . ( 2017 ) 8 Cal . App . 5th 846 , 860-861 (“[ Defendant ] argues that when public regulations require a company to exert control over its independent contractors , evidence of that government-mandated control cannot support a finding of vicarious liability based on agency . This argument conflicts with the policy behind the regulated hirer exception , which emphasizes that the effectiveness of public regulations ‘ would be impaired if the carrier could circumvent them by having the regulated operations conducted by an independent contractor .’”).
The more pressure we put on these companies and the more we shook the tree , the better our case got . After moving to compel , we obtained a manual that one defendant gave to all independent contractors . The manual included a significant set of driver guidelines and requirements . And through taking numerous PMQ depositions , we learned the name of a former employee for that same defendant ( not disclosed in discovery ) who was not under their control and provided the most candid testimony about the extensive control exerted over drivers . In the face of this mounting evidence of control , we were able to reach an eight-figure settlement of the case a month before trial was set to begin .
Developing Your Case
So , what did we learn from this case that may help you in yours ? Here are some lessons we took from the Estate of Sara Correa-Ojeda that may help you develop your own case against a lastmile logistics company :
• Look for Additional Targets : If you have a case involving last-mile delivery , look beyond the small independent contractor for other potential targets . Who is the driver delivering for even if the vehicle is unmarked ? What types and whose products are in the vehicle ? For example , are there pharmaceuticals involved and if so , is the pharmaceutical company using a healthcare logistics company ? Are there intermediaries or subcontractors involved ? In our case , there was a middleman between one of the
20 The Trial Lawyer