Idaho Top Court Finds Right to Control Test Applies to Worker’s Faulty Railing Lawsuit

Case File

Because the lower court failed to determine whether the alleged tortfeasor was an employee or an independent contractor under Idaho's right to control test, the Idaho Supreme Court sent the case back for further consideration. According to the high court, the trial court needed to conduct the right-to-control analysis before deciding that issue.

Case

Bauer v. Scott Myers and Sons Roofing and Construction, LLC, No. 52706-2025 (Idaho 10/22/26)

What Happened?

A worker for a plumbing company was injured while working on a project at an apartment complex when he fell from a second story balcony after a temporary railing broke. The worker received workers' compensation benefits from the company's workers' compensation insurer.

Later, the worker filed a complaint against another contractor on the project, claiming that the contractor removed and then improperly reinstalled the temporary railing. The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker's claims were barred on exclusive remedy grounds because the worker and the contractor were co-employees. In response, the worker argued that the contractor was an independent contractor, and so the exclusive remedy rule didn't bar the worker's claims.

The trial court granted the contractor's motion and dismissed the worker's claims, determining that the right to control test was not applicable. The trial court concluded that because both parties worked under the same general contractor, the exclusive-remedy doctrine barred the action without separately applying the right-to-control test to determine whether the roofing contractor was an employee or an independent contractor.

The worker appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the court should have applied the right to control test to determine whether the contractor was an independent contractor or an employee of the general contractor.

Rule of Law

Under Idaho law, an employee may have more than one employer: 1) the employer who directly hired the employee; and 2) a person or entity who, by statute, is also held to be the employer for workers' compensation purposes.

There are two categories of statutory employers:

(1) Any person who has expressly or impliedly hired or contracted the services of another. In this scenario, the employer must be liable to pay workers' compensation benefits if the direct employer does not.

(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or another person who is virtually the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on but who, by reason of there being an independent contractor or for another reason, is not the direct employer of the workers there employed.

Statutory-employer status and employee status are not identical concepts. A party may qualify as a statutory employer under Idaho's workers' compensation statutes while a separate inquiry remains necessary to determine whether an alleged tortfeasor is an employee or an independent contractor.

What the Idaho Supreme Court Said

According to the Idaho Supreme Court, to constitute an "employee" under Idaho law, one must be more than just a party to a contract; instead, there must be an employer-employee relationship with the statutory employer.

Glossary Check: Idaho law defines “independent contractor” as “any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the right to control or actual control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.”

Looking at the "right to control" test, which considers whether the contract gives or the employer assumes the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as opposed to merely requiring certain definite results in conformity to the contract, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate as it was premised entirely on the assertion that the contractor was a subcontractor of the general contractor, making the general contractor the statutory employer of both the contractor and the worker.

Thus, the Idaho Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for it to apply the right to control test to the case.

Verdict: Reversed.

Takeaway

Under Idaho workers' compensation law, the ultimate question in finding an employment relationship is whether the employer assumes the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work of the employee, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity with their agreement. That determination requires looking to more than contract labels. Rather, it requires an evaluation of the actual relationship between the parties through the right to control test.

Case Examples: In reaching its decision in this case, the Idaho Supreme Court distinguished three precedent cases the trial court relied on in reaching its conclusion --

(1) Fuhriman v. State Dep't of Transp., 153 P.3d 480 (Idaho 2007). Held that control does not need to be considered when determining if a party is a statutory employer because doing so erroneously combines the statutory employer and independent contractor analysis when those “are two separate steps and the factors of one analysis should not be automatically imputed onto the other.” Instead, “the ‘right to control’ test need not be applied when determining whether a person is a . . . statutory employer.” Because Fuhriman acknowledged that the employee/independent contractor analysis is distinct from the statutory employer analysis, the decision in that case did not preclude use of the right to control test to evaluate whether the contractor was an employee or an independent contractor.

(2) Richardson v. Z&H Construction, LLC, 470 P.3d 1154 (Idaho 2020). Although factually similar, because the Idaho Supreme Court was not asked to decide whether the right to control test should be applied to determine whether the subcontractors were employees or independent contractors, the decision did not control the outcome in this case.

(3) Smith v. Excel Fabrication, 535 P.3d 1098 (Idaho 2023). Because the appellant in Smith did not raise an argument concerning the right to control test, Smith did not control this case.

Share This Article: