This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Frausto (D) was delivering newspapers for D when his car collided with a motorcycle driven by P. The agreement with Frausto (D) stated he was an 'independent contractor,' retained to provide prompt delivery of its newspapers by the times specified in the contract. Frausto (D) had the right to operate the business as he chose, and he could engage others to deliver papers on his route for no more than 25% of the delivery days. He was free to pursue any other business activities, including delivering other publications, so long as those activities did not interfere with his performance. Frausto (D) was required to show satisfactory proof of liability insurance, a valid driver's license, and a favorable report from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division. P paid a set amount each week. D provided health and disability insurance but did not withhold any taxes. Frausto (D) considered himself an employee and delivered the papers any way his supervisor directed him to. P sued D for negligence under vicarious liability. The court held that Frausto (D) was an independent contractor. P appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.