Aggressive, inexpensive and experienced Hidden Hills California Business litigator
at your service
323-842-2194  Call now for free consultation for your business dispute matter in Hidden Hills California
info@losangelesattorney4u.com  
attorney adverting

            © Daniel B. Wolfberg
Hidden Hills California Attorney At Law
2001 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90403-5664
323-842-2194 phone
323-372-3764 fax 
Check another one of our other websites  www.civlitigation.com
New York Traffic Tickets
Rockland County Speeding ticket
Los Angeles Wills and Trusts Attorneys
New York Criminal Lawyer
NYC Traffic ticket defense

Call now:  323-842-2194 info@losangelesattorney4u.com

 As Varisco reads this rule, the atwill clause controls this case. We cannot see that the cases so hold. An independent contractor agreement can properly include an at-will clause giving the parties the right to terminate the agreement. Such a clause does not, in and of itself, change the independent contractor relationship into an employee-employer relationship. If it did, independent contractor arrangements could only be established through agreements which limited the right of a party, or perhaps both parties, to terminate the agreement. This would be absurd, and it is not the law. Neither Burlingham nor Toyota Motor Sales concerned independent contractor agreements terminable at-will by either party. Instead, both cases arose from car accidents. In Burlingham, the tortfeasor was a newspaper deliveryman/salesman, and in Toyota Motor Sales, the tortfeasor was delivering pizza. In both cases, the defense was that the tortfeasor was not an employee, but an independent contractor. The holding of Burlingham was that the issue should have gone to the jury. The court found "Aside from the right of immediate termination of [the deliveryman's] agency reserved by the company under the written contract, the extensive supervision exercised 9 by the company over [the deliveryman's] activities as dealer, together with his designation as an employee under the group insurance plan and on the 'Designation of Beneficiary' form, and his annual vacation 'with pay,' might well have served to convince the jury that the company's right of control . . . was complete and that any instructions given . . . would be obeyed." (Burlingham, supra, 22 Cal.2d at pp. 99-100.) In Toyota Motor Sales, the Court of Appeal found no substantial evidence for the trial court's conclusion that the deliveryman was an independent contractor.