This is an archived Horseadvice.com Discussion. The parent article and menus are available on the navigation menu below:
HorseAdvice.com » Equine Business and Law » Business Discussions »
  Discussion on Relationship Between a Trainer and A Client
Author Message
Member:
Aannk

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 10:21 am:

Does anyone know where I can find any legal documentation or anecdotal documentation showing that when a client hires a trainer to train their horse, the trainer is working as a private contractor, not an employee?
Thanks in advance,
Alicia
Member:
Banthony

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 10:49 am:

Look at the Workmans Comp rules for your state. Workmans Comp has a specific definitions for employee and contract labor. The IRS might too.
- An employee is told when to come to work and works a schedule.
- A contract laborer carries their own insurance and is on their own schedule to do a job.
Member:
Aannk

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 11:14 am:

Thanks Linda!
Member:
Green007

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 11:23 am:

The IRS has good information. See link.

id=99921%2C00.html,https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.ht ml

Also, I found a website about horse law that addresses this issue. I am pasting what I found below but the website is

https://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/equine/horselaw/lawsuit.htm

1. Independent Contractor Versus Employee

Unfortunately, some stables seek to avoid the expense of providing insurance for instructors by attempting to make the instructors "independent contractors" rather than "employees." If the riding instructor is an employee of the stables, then the stables is liable along with the instructor, for any injury to a student that is the fault of the instructor.

However, if the riding instructor is truly an independent contractor, then the stables is not liable for an injury to a student due exclusively to the fault of the instructor. Just calling an instructor an independent contractor does not make her one. When all the dust settles, a court will look to several factors in addition to what the instructor and stables have called the relationship to decide whether the instructor was an independent contractor or an employee.

Some of the factors are whether the instructor teaches for only one stable or more than one, whether the instructor uses her own equipment and horses in teaching the lessons or those of the stables, whether the instructor is paid directly by the student and remits part to the stables as "rent" or whether the stables collects the fee and pays the instructor a part, and whether the stables controls or has the right to control any of the details of how the instructor does her job while on the premises. To the extent the instructor teaches at more than one stable, uses her own equipment and horses, receives payment directly, and is not controlled by the stables as to how she teaches, the relationship begins to look like an independent contractor relationship. To the extent those factors are not present, the relationship looks more like an employee relationship.

If the contract between the instructor and the stables characterizes the relationship as being one of an independent contractor, that may be a clue that the stables either does not have insurance or has insurance that protects only the stables and not also the instructor. Either possibility should be of grave concern to the instructor.
Member:
Aannk

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 12:33 pm:

Debbie,
Thanks for that, but that is not what I am looking for. I want between the person who owns the horse, not the person who owns the stable.
Does the link have any info on that relationship?
Alicia
Member:
Sjeys

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 1:20 pm:

I vote for the IRS Website. They are very picky about the difference between a contractor and an employee. If I remember correctly the contractor can set how (the methods) the work is done and where the work is done and is not on a set, supervised schedule. The contractor works independently and may have more than one client.

The employee is dependent upon the employer for definining the work (what needs to be done) and how, when and what schedule the work is done.

So, I don't see how a horse trainer of one client could be called an employee, unless that employer also directs their day to day duties or pays the employee hourly for doing A, B and C and instructs and supervises the employee on HOW to do it...in which case they wouldn't need a horse trainer, they could do it themselves.
Member:
Aannk

Posted on Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 1:34 pm:

Susan,
Good info, I will send this on, thanks!
Alicia
Home Page | Top of Page | Join Us!
Horseadvice.com is a BBB Accredited Business. Click for the BBB Business Review of this Horse Training in Stokesdale NC