Kime v. Hobbs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there was no special danger created by the transportation of cattle in a tractor-trailer under normal conditions, and noting the plaintiff had failed to allege that the cattle were improperly secured
• holding there was no special danger created by the transportation of cattle in a tractor-trailer under normal conditions, and noting the plaintiff had failed to allege that the cattle were improperly secured
• stating that one of the factors used to differentiate between independent contractors and employees is “the extent of control which, by the agreement, the employer may exercise over the details of the work”
• finding that, although the employer of an independent contractor \may have retained control over particular aspects\ of the independent contractor's work, he was not liable due to retention of control because he \did not supervise the relevant work\
• finding that, although the employer of an independent contractor “may have retained control over particular aspects” of the independent contractor’s work, he was not liable due to retention of control because he “did not supervise the relevant work”
• noting control over the “methods and means,” rather than the results, indicates a master–servant relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).