Finance and Accounting Case - Essay Example

Moore Tires offered Jonathan, who was an employee and owner of Mercedes Tires an employment opportunity that he agreed to. While conducting his routine responsibilities within the new job, the claimant was an employee of Moore Tires and not Mercedes tires, where he had previously worked. While undertaking his duties there, the claimant was injured and sustained significant injuries to his body. As Jonathan was unhooking a trailer, a jack handle from the trailer struck him. He suffered from various broken bones on his face as well as a detached retina. Despite having sustained injuries while undertaking his routine activities, Jonathan was not compensated by Moore tires for these injuries.

Issue

To determine the status of employment of the claimant to the organization (Moore Tires), when he sustained injuries, and whether he was undertaking the job that he was supposed to be doing within the company.

Holding

The claims presented by Jonathan cannot be paid unless it can be ascertained he was an employee of Moore Tires

Reasoning

The kind of claim that Jonathan is seeking can only be made to individuals who are employees of the company and this can be proved. The form of agreement that the claimant had with Moore Tires has not been clearly defined as a formal agreement or an informal agreement. As the proprietor of Mercedes Tires, the claimant had been undertaking other duties assigned by Moore Tires and was paid through Mercedes was an independent company. The activities that he was undertaking when he sustained the injuries could similarly be in the same capacity and this has not been defined. The employment contract must be produced to show evidence that the claimant was an employee of Moore Tires and not an independent contractor.

There is also a need to determine the employer’s right of control in the working relationship that existed between the claimant and the employer (Miller, 2012). If the control of the employment terms conditioning of work lies within the employer, then the claims that are being made by Jonathan must be paid as he worked under the direction of the employer. If this cannot be proved within the context of the case it would mean that the claimant worked under their control and thus would be considered an independent contractor and not an employee. As such, the contractor would be responsible for his safety and any injuries sustained cannot be claimed as the responsibility of the employer.