Continental Oil Co. v. Sirhall
Decision Date | 28 August 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 16506,16506 |
Citation | 122 Colo. 332,222 P.2d 612 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL OIL CO. et al. v. SIRHALL et al. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
McComb, Nordmark & Zarlengo, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
John W. Metzger, Attorney General, Allen Moore, Deputy Attorney General, Donald C. McKinlay, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant in error Industrial Commission.
Continental Oil Company is the owner of a filling station which, with equipment, it leased to Miller for a period of one year at an agreed monthly rental. Claimant, who was employed by Miller, was injured while performing services within the scope of his employment at the filling station and was awarded compensation against the lessor company. This award was affirmed by the district court.
Independent of the statute, claimant beyond question was an employee of Miller, and not of the company. Miller selected him, determined and paid his wages, determined and assigned his work, directed its performance and had the right to discharge him. The question before us is whether the company nevertheless is liable under the provisions of section 49 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, section 328, chapter 97, '35 C.S.A., the pertinent part of which reads: 'Any person, company or corporation operating or engaged in or conducting any business by leasing, or contracting out any part or all of the work thereof to any lessee, sub-lessee, contractor or sub-contractor, shall irrespective of the number of employees engaged in such work, be construed to be and be an employer as defined in this article, and shall be liable as provided in this article to pay compensation for injury or death resulting therefrom to said lessees, sub-lessees, contractors and sub-contractors and their employees, * * *.'
We have repeatedly held that this section is valid and that thereby an obligation may, in proper case, be imposed against an owner where the common-law relationship of employer and employee does not exist, in that one may be an employee by virtue of the statute, for the purpose of workmen's compensation, when in fact he is not an employee by common-law definition. Industrial Commission v. Continental Inv. Co., 78 Colo. 399, 242 P. 49; Rhodes v. Industrial Commission, 99 Colo. 271, 61 P.2d 1035. We have declared that this act is for a beneficent purpose and should be broadly and liberally construed. Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 64 Colo. 480, 174 P. 589, 3 A.L.R. 1336.
The fact that Continental Oil Company was the lessor of claimant's employer would not of itself create liability on its part. As we said in Index Mines Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 82 Colo. 272, 259 P. 1036, 1037: Miller was ostensibly merely a lessee of the company. In form the relationship was, as alleged, a pure lessor-lessee relationship. There was a specified monthly rental based on the business done at that station during the preceding year, with no share of loss of profit by lessor. There was no right of control of the business or operation reserved by the lessor. Lessee's only formal obligation was to pay the specified rental and keep the property operating and in good condition. He purchased his products from the company for cash. It is urged that the situation is exactly that of any owner of real estate who leases it to another.
However, we cannot fail to note that this is not the type of property which would normally be rented for one year at a time, like farm property. It requires much longer than a year to establish trade and build up a successful business, and when established such trade cannot readily be taken to a new location. Power to terminate a lease may be just as effective as written authority in controlling the use of property. We further note from the record that the Continental Oil Company, for all its many stations, does not operate any of them directly, whether in Denver or elsewhere; that its many stations all 'look pretty much alike'; that they all have the common Conoco sign; that while the lease does not prohibit the tenant from removing the sign or from selling other gasoline during the duration of the lease, yet if he did so, admittedly the company would try to find a lessee who would maintain its sign; that the company wants its own product sold out of its stations, and that its representative, who had charge of leasing the company's Denver service stations, had never known of its products not being sold at its stations.
We have, then, a situation where a company, engaged in the refining and sale of gasoline and oils, owns many parcels of real property; that they are equipped with buildings, pumps and other facilities adapted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mezerkor v. Texaco, Inc.
...Cal.App.2d 713, 717--719, 320 P.2d 167; Yancey v. General Petroleum Corp. of California (1934) 20 I.A.C. 24; Continental Oil Co. v. Sirhall (1950) 122 Colo. 332, 222 P.2d 612; Bieluczyk v. Crown Petroleum Corp. (1948) 134 Conn. 461, 58 A.2d 380; and Hayes v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.......
-
United States v. Richfield Oil Corp., 6896-Y.
...And cases holding operators of stations of this type employees under a state Workmen's Compensation Act, Continental Oil Co. v. Sirhall, Colo.1950, 222 P.2d 612, or subjecting individual stations to state chain store taxes, Standard Oil Company of Indiana v. State Board of Equalization, 194......
-
Ellis v. Fairchild
...not merly that he was a lessor. (Index M. Co. v. Industrial Com., 82 Colo. 272, 274, 259 P. 1036 (1927); and Continental Co. v. Sirhall, 122 Colo. 332, 334, 222 P.2d 612 (1950).) In Industrial Com. v. Vancil, 133 Colo. 238, 293 P.2d 641 (1956), the Colorado Supreme Court held the lessor who......
-
Shell Oil Co. v. Leftwich
...Construction Company, 201 Va. 266, 110 S.E.2d 396 (1959), and other cases. Appellees' position finds support in Continental Oil Co. v. Sirhall, 122 Colo. 332, 222 P.2d 612 (1950) which was decided under a statute which makes a statutory employer any company which engages in any business 'by......