Evanson v. University of Hawaii
| Decision Date | 30 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 4999,4999 |
| Citation | 52 Haw. 595,483 P.2d 187 |
| Parties | Mary M. EVANSON, Fred T. Evanson and Mary M. Evanson, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas F. Evanson, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross Appellees, v. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, Shosuke Goto, Peairs Wilson, Mitsuru Furuya, John Doe and Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees, Cross Appellants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Workmen's compensation laws were enacted as a humanitarian measure, to create legal liability without relation to fault.
2. Since liability is made dependent on a nexus to the job, the essential prerequisite for coverage under workmen's compensation acts is the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
3. Under HRS § 386-1 "Employment' means any service performed by an individual for another person under any contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully entered into.'
4. The statutory definitions of the Hawaii act make it apparent that coverage under the law is dependent on the existence of a 'contract of hire or appreticeship' between the employee and employer.
5. A contract which sets forth the place, weekly hours and duration of the employee's employment as well as the wages he will be paid while employed satisfies the requirements of a contract of hire within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law.
6. A person may occupy the dual status of an employee and student with respect to an activity.
7. The legislature intended to protect all student employees except those specifically excluded by the statute.
8. Courts should give a liberal construction to workmen's compensation statutes in order to accomplish their beneficent purposes. Ted Gamble Clause and L. Richard Fried, Jr., Pratt, Moore, Bortz & Case, Honolulu, for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.
Jack C. Morse, Deputy Atty. Gen., Bertram T. Kanbara, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for defendants-appellees, cross-appellants.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., MARUMOTO, ABE and LEVINSON, JJ., and HAWKINS, Circuit Judge.
This case arose out of an accident which resulted in the death of Thomas Evanson, a full-time sophomore student at the University of Hawaii during the fall term of 1967. The accident occurred on Sunday, October 15, 1967 at the University of Hawaii's Pearl City Instructional Facility. The Instructional Facility consisted of a tract of raw land which was to be worked by students who had enrolled in a course entitled 'Agriculture 299, Agriculture Practice.' The course was offered by the College of Tropical Agriculture and was designed to supplement the academic and laboratory instructional program with some practical experience. In enrolling for the agricultural practice course Thomas Evanson was required to execute a 'Work Agreement with the University of Hawaii' which set forth the place, weekly hours and duration of his employment as well as the wages he would be paid while working at the University's Pearl City farm. The course involved the operation of heavy equipment at the Pearl City facility.
On the day of the accident the decedent was operating a tractor at the Instructional Facility, having received prior permission from defendant Shosuke Goto, Assistant Dean of the College of Tropical Agriculture. The tractor overturned, pinning Evanson underneath. Evanson remained in this condition for several hours until he was discovered by the farm manager Mitsuru Furuya. Evanson was then taken to Queen's Medical Center where he died shortly thereafter.
The parents of the decedent, Mary M. Evanson and Fred T. Evanson, brought suit against the University of Hawaii and the defendants Goto, Wilson and Furuya in the First Circuit Court to recover damages for the wrongful death of their son. In their pleadings the defendants asserted the defense that the Workmen's Compensation Law was the exclusive remedy available to the plaintiffs. On the same theory the defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 2, 1969 the trial court entered an order which (1) granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs to strike as insufficient the defendants' workmen's compensation defense and (2) denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
A non-jury trial on the merits of the plaintiffs' tort action was had. At the end of the plaintiffs' presentation of their case, the trial court granted the defense motions dismissing the case as to all the defendants except the University of Hawaii, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. The taking of testimony was concluded the next day. On February 26, 1970 the trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of the remaining defendant, the University of Hawaii. The plaintiffs have appealed and the defendant has cross-appealed.
On appeal the plaintiffs argue that the trial court's findings of fact supporting the judgment are clearly erroneous. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in entering its order of June 2, 1969 which (1) struck as insufficient the defense of the Workmen's Compensation Act and (2) denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Because we agree with the defendant that the Workmen's Compensation Law is the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy we find it unnecessary to decide the allegations of error raised by the plaintiffs.
Workmen's compensation laws were enacted as a humanitarian measure, to create legal liability without relation to fault. Silva v. Kaiwiki Mill. Co., 24 Haw. 324, 330 (1918). They represent a socially enforced bargain: the employee giving up his right to recover common law damages from the employer in exchange for the certainty of a statutory award for all work-connected injuries. Since liability is made dependent on a nexus to the job, the essential prerequisite for coverage under workmen's compensation acts is the existence of an employer-employee relationship. In determining whether the decedent had entered into such an arrangement with the defendant our starting point must be the definitional requirements set forth in HRS § 386-1 of the Hawaii Workmen's Compensation Law. These definitions provide in relevant part:
'Employee's means any individual in the employment of another person except where such employment is solely for personal, family, or household purposes.
'Employer' means any person having one or more persons in his employment.
'Employment' means any service performed by an individual for another person under any contract of hire or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flor v. Holguin, No. 22641.
...should therefore give them a liberal construction in order to accomplish their beneficent purposes." Evanson v. University of Hawai`i, 52 Haw. 595, 600, 483 P.2d 187, 191 (1971) (emphasis added) (citations Mitchell v. State Dep't of Educ., 85 Hawai`i 250, 255, 942 P.2d 514, 519 (1997) (foot......
-
90 Hawai'i 152, Amantiad v. Odum
...210, 900 P.2d 784, 786 (1995); Treloar v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 65 Haw. 415, 425, 653 P.2d 420, 427 (1982); Evanson v. University of Hawaii, 52 Haw. 595, 483 P.2d 187 (1971). An equal number of cases have recognized that our workers' compensation statute has a beneficent purpose and shou......
-
EMPLOYEE BEN. COMMITTEE, ETC. v. Pascoe, Civ. No. 78-0483.
...in every other state, preempts any common law remedy an employee previously may have had against an employer. See Evanson v. Univ. of Hawaii, 52 Haw. 595, 483 P.2d 187 (1971); Stong v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 472 F.Supp. 1089, 1093 To include workers' compensation benefits within the "integration......
-
Puchert v. Agsalud
...the workers' compensation statutes and has construed them liberally to effectuate their beneficient purposes. Evanson v. University of Hawaii, 52 Haw. 595, 483 P.2d 187 (1971); Re Ichijiro Ikoma, 23 Haw. 291 Since the legislative intent of HRS § 378-32(2) is to protect claimants under our w......