Erickson v. Kircher
| Decision Date | 25 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,386 |
| Citation | 209 N.W. 644,168 Minn. 67 |
| Parties | INGABORG ERICKSON AND OTHERS v. EDWARD KIRCHER AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Commission denying compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Affirmed.
Jurisdiction of Industrial Commission limited to relation of employer and employe, subcontractor was the employer and he was independent contractor.
Record examined; held:
(1) Upon the facts stated in the opinion it could not be said that there was a conspiracy to escape the burdens imposed by the Compensation Act.
(2) Before the Industrial Commission may make an award the relation of employer and employe must be established.
(3) That the employer was an independent contractor.
(4) That the subcontractor and not the general contractors was the employer.
(5) The commission properly declined jurisdiction of questions not involved in the relation of employer and employe under the contract of employment and the compensation law which is made a part thereof.
Workmen's Compensation Acts, C.J. p. 47 n. 34; p. 50 n. 62, 63; p. 114 n. 11.
See 28 R.C.L. 760; 4 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1846; 5 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1560.
See 28 R.C.L. p. 762; 4 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1847; 5 R.C.L. Supp. p 1561.
Charles L. De Reu, for relator.
Campbell & Burness and Ware & Melrin, for respondents.
Certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Commission denying compensation.
Kircher Brothers were the contractors for the construction of Judicial Ditch No. 15 of Renville county. The Federal Surety Company was their surety in the sum of $35,000. About one year after the contract was let Kircher Brothers sublet to one B. H. Malmgren a portion of the work pursuant to a written contract which was substantially in the same terms as the general contract. Malmgren undertook to furnish all labor and material incident to the construction of that portion embraced in his contract with certain exceptions. He furnished Kircher Brothers a $7,000 bond conditioned for the faithful performance by him of his contract. The Grant County State Bank held a chattel mortgage for $3,100 on a ditching machine owned by Malmgren. A. W. Wells and S. F. Tomlin, officers of the bank, became sureties for Malmgren on his bond. Malmgren assigned to the bank the proceeds of his contract with Kircher Brothers with the understanding that all moneys received thereunder should first be credited to his personal checking account with the bank and that he should at all times be permitted to draw against his account for labor and material to be furnished under said contract, including his living expenses. It was agreed that the balance was to be applied upon his indebtedness to the bank. With this understanding between all the parties Kircher Brothers remitted direct to the bank and the money was used pursuant to said arrangement.
In doing the work Malmgren employed Howard Erickson who suffered death in the course of the employment. Kircher Brothers carried a policy of workmen's compensation insurance, covering its employes, with the London Guaranty & Accident Company, Ltd. Relator seeks to hold Kircher Brothers, the two insurance companies mentioned, and Malmgren liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Malmgren alone admits his liability as the employer. The Industrial Commission found the other parties not liable. The commission denied relator's application to make the bank and its two officers parties herein upon the claim that they were liable.
1. It is asserted by relator in the brief that the arrangement between these parties was a scheme or device to relieve the original contractor from the burden of insurance premiums and it is said that the subcontractor was insolvent and that he, the contractor, the bank and its said officers entered into a conspiracy so that the party primarily liable under the Compensation Act would be financially irresponsible and thereby escape the burdens imposed by the Compensation Act. The proof however is insufficient to justify this assertion. It follows that the application to bring in additional parties was properly denied.
2. Contracts of employment by virtue of the Compensation Act contain an implied provision that the employer, in case the employe is...
To continue reading
Request your trial