Hanson v. BCB, Inc.

Patrice Hanson was shot and killed in a parking lot of the Hide-Out Saloon (the saloon) (defendant) after performing in the saloon as an exotic dancer. Patrice began working at the saloon after answering a newspaper ad and passing an audition with the saloon’s owner. The saloon’s exotic dancers received an equal share of all the cover charges each evening, tips, and one free drink. The saloon provided the music for the dancers, and the dancers provided their own costumes. The saloon required the dancers to wear pantyhose to comply with Idaho law and would fire dancers for failing to do so. Hanson’s husband, Harold Hanson (plaintiff), testified that Patrice worked three to five nights per week at the saloon owner’s discretion, but the saloon owner testified that the dancers signed up on a calendar for the nights they wanted to work. On the nights she danced, Patrice often came in later than 4:00 p.m., the suggested start time, and often left before 1:00 a.m., the shift end time. If a dancer decided not to work on a scheduled night, then the dancer was in charge of finding her own substitute. No dancer was required to act as a substitute. Harold, along with Patrice’s daughter, Jesse Hanson (plaintiff) (collectively, Patrice’s dependents), filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission determined that the preponderance of the evidence supported Patrice’s being an independent contractor and not covered by workers’ compensation. In so holding, the commission found in part that the dancers supplied the major items of equipment: their costumes and their bodies. Patrice’s dependents appealed.