Mill Street Church of Christ v. Hogan

Kentucky Court of Appeals · Corporations

CorporationsAgencyWorkers' CompensationImplied AuthorityEmployment Relationshipagencyimplied authorityapparent authority

Facts

The church hired Bill Hogan to paint its building, and in the past had allowed him to hire his brother Sam Hogan or others when help was needed. During this project, Bill told church Elder Dr. Waggoner that he needed a helper for the high baptistry area; they discussed Gary Petty, but Bill was not told he had to hire Petty or that he could not hire someone else. Bill then hired Sam, who began work and was injured within a half hour when a ladder broke. The church supplied the tools and materials, and after the accident the church treasurer paid Bill for all hours worked, including Sam’s half hour.

Issue

Whether the New Board improperly treated the case as involving a question of law rather than fact, and whether Bill Hogan had implied authority as the church’s agent to hire Sam Hogan so that Sam was an employee covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Rule

When the essential facts are not substantially disputed, whether a worker is an employee may be a question of law. Implied authority is actual authority circumstantially proven that the principal intended the agent to possess, including powers practically necessary to carry out delegated duties; in determining implied authority, courts focus on the agent’s reasonable understanding based on the principal’s present or past conduct, the nature of the task, and prior similar practices. Under KRS 342.260, employees include persons working under express or implied contracts of hire and helpers or assistants of employees, whether paid by the employer or employee, if employed with the employer’s actual or constructive knowledge.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Lexington, Kentucky, Blue Cedar Fellowship hired Owen Pike to repaint a large meeting hall. Everyone agrees that the fellowship had previously let Owen hire helpers on similar jobs, that no one told him he could not do so this time, and that he hired Tara Mays for the upper-wall work; the only disagreement is whether those facts legally make Tara an employee covered by workers’ compensation after she fell from scaffolding.

How should a reviewing board most likely characterize the issue whether Tara was an employee?

Explanation. When the essential facts are not really disputed, whether those facts establish employee status may be treated as a question of law. The majority held that where the parties agreed on the principal past practices, what the agent was told, and the circumstances of hiring the helper, the reviewing body could determine the legal consequence of those facts rather than defer as though resolving disputed historical facts.