Amstutz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

The controlling question in this case is' whether the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

Appellant contends that the evidence adduced by appellee was insufficient in law to prove the existence of agency between appellant and Shultz; that, on the contrary, the evidence proved, or tended to prove, the relationship to be that of employer and independent contractor; that, therefore, the trial court was not warranted in submitting the case to the jury.

In Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 134 Ohio St., 289, 16 N. E. (2d), 447, this court said that: “The…