Joseph Hamilton v. Gregory Palm, et al, No. 11-1907 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Agency. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2010). On remand, the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as the undisputed facts showed Hamilton was not defendant's employee.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1907 ___________ Joseph Hamilton, Appellant, v. Gregory Palm; Toni Palm, Appellees. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: November 22, 2011 Filed: December 14, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity damage action, Joseph Hamilton sued Gregory and Toni Palm for injuries incurred when Hamilton fell while performing roofing work on the Palms property. The critical issue under Missouri law is whether Hamilton was working as the Palms employee, as he alleged, or as an independent contractor. The district court initially dismissed the complaint, concluding Hamilton had not plausibly alleged employee status. We reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the complaint raised plausible inferences of both employee and independent contractor status that should not be determined by a motion to dismiss. Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2010). On remand, after full discovery, the district court1 granted the Palms summary judgment, concluding that the undisputed facts establish that [Hamilton] was not an employee of the Palms. Hamilton appeals, arguing that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on this issue. As the district court recognized, in determining whether a person acted as an employee or as an independent contractor, Missouri courts apply the multi-factor common law test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220, under which the critical right-to-control issue is affected by many factors none of which is itself controlling. Hamilton, 621 F.3d at 818, citing Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 395 (Mo. 1973). Whether that ultimate issue is one of fact or of law has engendered considerable debate in various contexts. See Ernster v. Luxco, Inc., 596 F.3d 1000, 1004-07 (8th Cir. 2010). Missouri courts quite clearly consider it an issue of fact, but one that is often suitable for summary judgment resolution. See Trinity Lutheran Church v. Lipps, 68 S.W.3d 552, 559 (Mo. App. 2001). This is consistent with a Restatement comment that, if its multiple relevant factors provide a clear inference that there was, or was not, an employer-employee relationship, the issue is properly determined by the court. Restatement § 220 cmt. c. Here, the district court applied the undisputed facts to the relevant Restatement factors and concluded that summary judgment was appropriate. Having reviewed this determination de novo, we agree for the reasons stated in the court s thorough Memorandum Opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
