Anderson v. Last Chance Ranch Co.
Decision Date | 02 July 1924 |
Docket Number | 4112 |
Citation | 228 P. 184,63 Utah 551 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | ANDERSON v. LAST CHANCE RANCH CO. et al |
Petition for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by C. T. Anderson, opposed by the Last Chance Ranch Company and others. The industrial Commission denied the petition, and claimant applies for writ of certiorari.
AFFIRMED.
Willard Hanson and A. H. Hougaard, both of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Robinson, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendants.
This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the Utah Industrial Commission, denying plaintiff's petition for compensation under the Utah Industrial Act (Comp. Laws 1917, §§ 3061-3165). Upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, it found the following facts:
Upon the foregoing findings the Commission entered conclusions to the effect that plaintiff at the time of his injury was engaged in agricultural labor, and upon that ground held that his claim for compensation should be denied.
The findings of fact are not in dispute; the conclusions therefrom are vigorously challenged. The contention of plaintiff seems to be that it is the character of the work in which the employee is engaged as the time of his injury that determines his right to compensation, and not the general or usual business of the employer. Whether the right to compensation is determined by the general or usual business of the employer, or by the character of business in which the employee is engaged at the time of the injury, depends entirely upon the intent of the statute which determines the right. Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 3110, subd. 2, as amended in Sess. Laws 1919, at pages 155, 156, reads:
It appears from the record that the Commission was of opinion that the general business of the employer was the controlling factor in determining the nature of the employment and the right to compensation. The statute is clearly susceptible of that interpretation. Indeed, the language is plain and unambiguous. It will be noted that, in the statute quoted, in determining who are employers and defining the term "regular" the following language is used:
"It means all employments in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of an employer."
Again in section 3111, in determining who are employees, after enumerating the classes included, the statute reads:
"But not including any person whose employment is but casual and is not in the usual course of trade, business, or occupation of his employer." (Italics supplied.)
The Commission found that the general business of the defendant Ranch Company was "that of agriculture." By the term "general business" we are forced to conclude that the Commission meant "usual course of business, trade, or occupation," thereby bringing the case within the exclusion provisions of the statute.
As before stated, the findings are not challenged. The only question is: Do the findings warrant the conclusion that plaintiff at "the date of the injury was engaged in agricultural labor?" In a narrow and restricted view of the transaction, plaintiff at the very moment of his injury was an agricultural laborer. He was assisting farm laborers in moving boxes containing groceries for use on the farm. In the broader sense he was a carpenter's helper, for that was the work he had been doing all the time from the date of his employment down to the moment he stepped aside, at the request of his employer, to assist in removing the boxes. We are not inclined to dispose of the case upon the narrow view above referred to. If, for instance, it could be determined from the record that the defendant was carrying on two different kinds of business, each independent of the other, one agricultural and the other the construction of buildings, the writer would find his way clear to hold that plaintiff was injured while engaged as an assistant in the construction of buildings, notwithstanding the injury occurred while momentarily engaged in removing boxes containing groceries for use on the farm. In the case supposed, the construction of buildings would have been his regular employment, and also the regular business of his employer. The authorities are uniform, as far as I am advised, in holding that the same employer can be engaged in two or more different kinds of business, trade, or occupation unconnected with one another, and all or some of them, nevertheless, be within the provisions of the Industrial Act.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harding v. Industrial Commission of Utah
...whatever with the sand and gravel business, although the hay was to be fed horses used in the sand and gravel business. In Anderson v. Last Chance Ranch Co., supra, the court held that under the provisions of the Compensation Law the controlling factor in determining the nature of the emplo......
-
Ocean Accident & Guarantee Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... are three attached indorsements to the policy, the last of ... which is designated "blanket coverage indorsement", ... and among ... announced by this court in the case of Anderson v ... [69 Utah 481] Last Chance Ranch Co., 63 Utah 551, ... 228 P. 184 ... ...
- State v. Rutledge
-
Diamond Ice Co. v. Seitz
... ... operating a mortuary. See also Anderson v. Last Chance ... Ranch Co., 63 Utah 551, 228 P. 184; Blakely v. Hamby ... ...