01-2938 Olson v. Auto Sport, Inc.

Listen to this article

“We do not disagree that James and Auto Sport undoubtedly had a contractual relationship. For instance, if Auto Sport refused to pay prize money to which James was entitled, James certainly could enforce that obligation. Conversely, we do not doubt that if James disobeyed the Auto Sports rules governing a race, Auto Sport could bar James from future participation. But those kinds of mutual obligations did not serve to transform the contract between Auto Sport and James into an employer/employee relationship because they did not entail the kind of authority and control that an employer traditionally exercises over an employee. … Colloquially stated, the statute envisions the employer telling the employee to ‘go here, go there, do this and do that.’ There is not the slightest hint in the summary judgment record that Auto Sport had that kind of authority or control over James. …

“In sum, the facts surrounding James’ participation indicate, as a matter of law, that he was involved in truck racing for recreational purposes. He paid entry fees for the privilege of participating. Auto Sport could neither require nor direct James to participate in the races it sponsored and promoted. The award of prize money did not represent wages or compensation growing out of an employment relationship. Viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to the Olsons, there is no evidence, nor reasonable inference therefrom, supporting the claim that James was the employee of Auto Sport.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Walworth County, Carlson, J., Nettesheim, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John V. O’Connor, Kenosha

For Respondent: Pamela M. Schmidt, Milwaukee