Fact that decedent had a business of his own at time he was working on county road was factor to be considered in determining whether he was, for workmen's compensation purposes, an independent contractor but did not determine his relationship to county. Swain v. Monona County, 1969, 163 N.W.2d 918. Workers' Compensation 317

Existence of "independent contractor" relationship is tested by existence of contract for performance by a person of certain piece or kind of work at fixed price, independent nature of business or a distinct calling, employment of assistants with right to supervise their activities, obligation to furnish tools, supplies, and materials, right to control progress of work except as to final results, time for which workman is employed, method of payment, and question whether work is part of employer's regular business. Swain v. Monona County, 1969, 163 N.W.2d 918.


Principal test of "independent contractor" is his freedom to determine for himself manner in which specified result shall be accomplished, and other tests are existence of contract for certain piece of work at fixed price, independent nature of his calling, his right to hire and supervise assistants, his obligation to furnish necessary tools and equipment, time for which he is employed, method of payment, whether by job or time, and whether his work is part of his employer's regular business. Hassebroch v. Weaver Const. Co., 1954, 67 N.W.2d 549, 246 Iowa 622.


If master retains control and direction of men, with right to fix pay and to discharge them as he pleases, and with power of control over employees, relationship of "independent contractor" is not created. Niemann v. Iowa Elec. Co., 1934, 253 N.W. 815, 218 Iowa 127. Workers' Compensation 306


Workman using employer's tools or equipment, especially if of substantial value, is generally deemed "employee' rather than "independent contractor." Mallinger v. Webster City Oil Co., 1931, 234 N.W. 254, 211 Iowa 847. Workers' Compensation 312



[[[read this case]]]]

Threshold determination in deciding whether worker falls into workers' compensation scheme is whether worker entered into contract of hire, express or implied. Parson v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 1994, 514 N.W.2d 891, rehearing denied. Workers' Compensation 234


Factor from above case: whether laborers were provided with W-2 income tax forms.


[[[read this case]]]

To constitute a "contract of employment" whether express or implied, between a workman employed by another and some other person for whom work is being done, there must be some recognition on the part of the employee, if not formal consent, of or to the person for whom the work is being done. Muscatine City Water Works v. Duge, 1942, 7 N.W.2d 203, 232 Iowa 1076. Workers' Compensation 207






Neither an independent contractor nor an employee of an independent contractor is considered to be an employee of the general contractor under the Workers' Compensation Law. Farris v. General Growth Development Corp., App.1984, 354 N.W.2d 251. Workers' Compensation 304; Workers' Compensation 344