In the case of Steven versus Brodribb and hollies versus Vabu there are two main legal issues which are depicted. The legal issue in the case of Steven versus Brodribb is the factor of vicarious liability. In this, a fee is charged on a person to cater for damages caused by another person. Brodribb was fined a total of 180000 dollars to compensate of Steven an independent contractor contracted by Brodribb as a transporter to ferry logs from his sawmill. He was struck by Gray an independent contractor too contracted by Mr. Brodribb to load the logs.
Brodribb was fined for the mistake done by Mr. Gray by hitting Steven due to his ignorance of not observing whether the way behind the bulldozer was clear before moving the bulldozer and hence he struck him and pinning him with a log. It was very clear that the compensation was unfair since both the victim and Gray were both independent contractors thus their hirer had limited liability to the risks the contractors imposed themselves. Mr. Gray and his contraction company ought to have made the full compensation. We can also question Mr.
Gray’s responsibility as to who he delegated the work. This raises the question on the skills and qualification of the son. Incase he was not fully qualified and skilled to handle the machines; it would pose a hazard in the working environment. The contractors also ought to have sorted the problem themselves without including Brodribb. Mr. Brodribb should also have done some backgrounds check to ensure that both contractors had the safety measures in place while working. He ought to have interviewed them and verified their documents.
In the case of Hollies versus Vabu it can clearly be pointed out that Vabu which was a courier services company was breaching the contract between it and the employees. Hollies, an employee in the company sued it for the breaching of the contract. The initial terms and agreement in the contract was that the couriers could bring their own bikes to use in transporting the parcels. Other employees in hollies capacity supplied own bike, bore the expense of maintenance and insurance paid for insurance themselves.
They provided their own street directories, telephone books, ropes, trolley, blankets, paid by delivery and they were responsible for paying income tax. On the other hand, the company provided telephone uniforms. This is enough to prove that they were hired as independent contractor since the machines belonged to them, catered for all their fees insurance and some other expenses. This shows that in a way they were carrying out their own business. However much they argued on being independent contractors, some factors proved they were misused by the Vabu Company and treated like normal employees.
These factors clearly contemplates with the others hence making the contract hard to understand it may be very clear that the employer was stingy or just not that generous to the employees. The contradictors which show it would be an independent contract are factors such as them having to get permission for leave, required to be at work at 9am and assigned work in a strict duty roster. Couriers could not refuse any work regardless of its nature, bicycle courier could not generate goodwill, Vabu courier uniforms showed control over the employees and the finances such as the salaries were dictated by the company (Walsh, 2006).
Due to lack of knowledge of the two main contracts of employment such as the contract of service and the contract for service the employees were misused without their knowledge until hollies hit a person sparking the question of what is the agreement in the case. It was clear that a certain contract ha been breached. This is a very important part of the reasoning as normally these factors indicate independent contract not employee.