Anderson v. Roberts-Karp Hotel Company
| Decision Date | 03 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 25,994 |
| Citation | 214 N.W. 265,171 Minn. 402 |
| Parties | CHARLES ANDERSON v. ROBERTS-KARP HOTEL COMPANY AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari to review an award made by the industrial commission under the workmen's compensation act. Affirmed.
How compensation is computed for janitor injured while working for separate employers.
1. Where an employe, who performs services as porter or janitor for two or more independent employers who are under the compensation act, sustains a compensable injury in the service of one of such employers, he is entitled to compensation from such employer based on his total regular earnings as such porter or janitor.
Word "employment" as used in statute.
2. The term employment as used in G.S. 1923, § 4325, means the particular kind of employment in which the employe was engaged at the time of the accident.
Workmen's Compensation Acts -- C.J. p. 90 n. 26.
Campbell & Burness, for relators.
Joseph Harkness, Jr., for respondent.
Certiorari to review an award made by the industrial commission under the workmen's compensation law.
The claimant was employed as night porter in a hotel in the city of Mankato at $90 per month, which was the usual pay for such work. He sustained an injury for which he was allowed and received compensation for a period of 125 weeks on the basis that his earnings were $90 per month. His hospital and doctor's bills were also paid. Thereafter he made an application to vacate the award and for a rehearing which was submitted on a stipulated statement of facts. The stipulation shows that the claimant while working for the hotel company also performed similar services for an independent employer not connected with that company, for which he received the sum of $17 per month; and that both employers were under the compensation act. The commission granted the rehearing, and on the stipulated facts awarded compensation on the basis that the claimant's earnings were $107 per month, the total of the amount received from both employers. Whether the compensation should be based on the total earnings of the claimant or on his earnings in the service in which he sustained his injury is the question presented.
The statute does not specifically define the rights of a workman in such a situation. Section 4277, G.S. 1923, provides for the case where a workman is employed and paid jointly by two or more employers subject to the act, and also for the case where he is employed and paid jointly by two or more employers only a part of whom are subject to the act; but the claimant is not within this provision for he was not employed or paid jointly by the two employers. Section 4325, G.S. 1923, provides:
"'Daily wage' as used in this act shall mean the daily wage of the employe in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the injury, and if at the time of the injury the employe is working on part time for the day, his daily wage shall be arrived at by dividing the amount received or to be received by him for such part time service for the day by the number of hours of such part time service and multiplying the result by the number of hours of the normal working day for the employment involved."
This seems to be the only provision which applies to the present case; and what the legislature intended by the expression "daily wage of the employe in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the injury," as applied to a case in which the workman performs similar services for two or more independent employers giving a part of his time to each is not entirely clear. Other courts confronted by a similar problem have held that it means the...
To continue reading
Request your trial