Beyer v. Decker

• Decision Date: 11 June 1930
• Docket Number: 37.
• Citation: 150 A. 804,159 Md. 289
• Parties: BEYER v. DECKER ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

150 A. 804

159 Md. 289

BEYER v. DECKER ET AL.

No. 37.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 11, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cecil County; Lewin W. Wickes and Thomas J. Keating, Judges.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Emil Albert Beyer, claimant, opposed by Joseph Ben Decker, employer, and the Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company insurance carrier. The Industrial Accident Commission held that claimant was within the statute, but such holding was reversed on appeal to the circuit court, and claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Joseph T. England, of Baltimore, and Edward D. E. Rollins, of Elkton (Julius F. Sandrock, of Baltimore, and E. Kirk Brown, of Elkton, on the brief), for appellant.

W. Pepper Constable, of Baltimore (Harold Tschudi and Charles Carroll, Jr., both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

BOND C.J.

The question to be decided in this case is one arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code, art. 101, whether an excepting clause in section 65, excluding from the operation of the act employees "engaged in rendering any agricultural service, * * * [or] in service incidental to and in connection with agricultural pursuits or developments," covers an employee who works on a dairy farm and delivers milk, as described in the evidence. There is no dispute on the scope and character of the employee's duties. The State Industrial Accident Commission held that he was not such an employee as the clause excepted, but on appeal the circuit court held that on the undisputed facts he did come within the excepting clause and directed a verdict accordingly, in favor of the contentions of the employer and insurer. The employee appeals.

The employer owned and operated farms in Cecil county, about two miles from Elkton, with an aggregate of about 500 acres carried on a dairying business on the farms, and, besides raised corn, wheat, oats, and the like, in season. He kept about 30 cows, and some young stock. He had a milk route in Elkton on which he delivered 400 and more bottles daily, and any surplus milk from the farm he had was delivered at Elkton to a wholesaler who transported it to Philadelphia. Beyer, the claimant, was regularly employed in dairy work, and drove a horse and wagon delivering surplus milk at the stations, to the wholesaler. And he was struck by a Pennsylvania Railroad engine and injured, while delivering at the station of that railroad. His duties did not include any work on the farm crops. He regularly started in the morning milking the cows and seeing that the surplus milk was delivered to the stations, hauled out manure, threw down feed, took care of his horse and wagon, washed out bottles and cans, drove back and forth, and "did anything that had to be done around" in connection with...