Dissenting Opinion by
Justice WINTERSHEIMER.I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the Court of Appeals did not err as a matter of law in finding that the arrangement created an independent contractor status.
The Court of Appeals followed the correct standard of review in reaching its legal conclusion that the Commission had improperly applied the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 (1958) to the facts of this case.
The test used in Kentucky to determine the status of either employee or independent contractor comes from the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) (1958). The principal standard here is the extent of the control which the newspaper exercised over the details of the work. Landmark did not supply any of the instrumen-talities necessary to deliver the papers other than the papers themselves. The carriers were paid per unit delivered and the contract clearly stated that the arrangement was that of an independent contractor. There was little if any control of the method and means by which the work of delivery was accomplished. Only the result mattered to the newspaper. The record indicates that the carriers set their own hours, used their own vehicles, paid their own expenses in connection with the vehicles and were specifically allowed by the contract to perform delivery services for other businesses and could subcontract the work of delivery. The provision requiring a dry newspaper to be delivered on a hook or in a tube by 7 a.m. on publication days was not controlling of the details of the work of delivery but only a statement regarding the end result to be accomplished by the contract. The carriers had the freedom to plan their own routes and decide the time of delivery.
The Court of Appeals did not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission, but only performed an appropriate appellate review. The decision of the Court of Appeals is in concert with a previous decision of this Court in Locust Coal Co. v. Bennett, Ky., 325 S.W.2d 322 (1959), where it was held that under similar circumstances that the carriers were independent contractors rather than employees.
*583I would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
JOHNSTONE, J., joins this dissent.