INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. One who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work. Powell v. Construc tion Co., 88 Tenn. 692, 13 S. W. 691, 17 Am. St. Rep. 925.
The term is also defined to denote one who has the right to select, employ, and control the action of the workmen ; Bennett v. True body, 66 Cal. 509, 6 Pac. 329, 56 Am. Rep. 117; Gay v. Kohlsaat, 80 Ill. App. 185; one who is subject to his employer as to the re sults of his work only ; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Dobson, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 367.
A still broader definition has been given as follows : "Where a person is employed to perform a certain kind of work, in the nature of repairs or improvements to a building, by the owner thereof, which re quires the exercise of skill and judgment as a mechanic, the execution of which is left entirely to his discretion, without any re striction as to its exercise, and no limitation as to the authority conferred in respect to the same, and no provision is especially made as to the time in which the work is to be done, or as to the payment for the services rendered, and the compensation is dependent upon the value thereof, such person does not occupy the relation of servant under the con trol of the master, but is an independent contractor." Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377, 4 N. E. 755, 54 Am. Rep. 703.
Any one who follows a recognized in dependent calling has been held to be an independent contractor ; as a slater; Mc Carthy v. Second Parish in Town of Port land, 71 Me. 318, 36 Am. Rep. 320 ; an archi tect; De Ford v. State, 30 Md. 179; a horse trainer; Arasmith v. Temple, 11 Ill. App. 39 ; a manufacturer of shingles ; Whitney v. Clifford, 46 Wis. 138, 49 N. W. 835, 32 Am. Rep. 703 ; a builder ; Robinson v. Webb, 11 Bush (Ky.) 464; a licensed public carman; McMullen v. Hoyt, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 271; a drayman ; De Forrest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 368;
a drover; 12 Ad. & El. 737 ; a plumber ; Meany v. Abbott, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 256; and a stevedore ; The Rheola, 19 Fed. 926 ; Hass v. S. S. Co., 88 Pa. 269, 32 Am. Rep. 462 ; 6 L. R. C. P. 24 ; Burke v. De Castro, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 354 ; Riley v. S. S. Co., 29 La. Ann. 791, 29 Am. Rep. 249; and the mode of pay ment and the fact that materials are furnish ed by the employer have been held to have but little weight in determining whether the employe is an independent contractor or not ; Fuller v. Bank, 15 Fed. 875 ; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Reese, 61 Miss. 581. The rule is that where a person is under the entire direction and control of another he is to be considered his servant, no matter who pays him ; 5 B. & C. 560. The test to determine whether one who renders service to another does so as a contractor or not is to ascertain whether he renders the service in the course of an independent occupation representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work and not as to the means by which it was accomplished; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 385, 4 N. E. 755, 54 Am. Rep. 703.
In cases of an independent contract, the employer is not responsible; Kimball v. Cush man, 103 Mass. 194, 4 Am. Rep. 528 ; Young v. R. Co., 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 229 ; Blake v. Ferris, 5 N. Y. 48, 55 Am. Dec. 304 ; Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. 32, 49 Am. Rep. 113; Kep perly v. Ramsden, 83 Ill. 354; Rome & D. R. Co. v. Chasteen, 88 Ala. 591, 7 South. 94; Bennett v. Truebody, 66 Cal. 509, 6 Pac. 329, 56 Am. Rep. 117 ; Gallagher v. Exposition Ass'n, 28 La. Ann. 943 ; 7 H. & N. 826 ; 2 C. P. Div. 369; Bailey v. R. Co., 57 Vt. 252, 52 Am. Rep. 129 ; Hitte v. R. Co., 19 Neb. 620, 28 N. W. 284 ; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Reese, 61 Miss. 581; Pierce v. O'Keefe, 11 Wis. 180. In 1 Bos. & P. 404, the rule was laid down that not only was the employer liable for the negligence of a contractor, but for that of a servant of a sub-contractor.