Gagnon's Case
| Decision Date | 07 May 1929 |
| Citation | 146 A. 82 |
| Parties | GAGNON'S CASE, and three other cases. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Appeals from Industrial Accident Commission.
Separate proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries sustained by one Gagnon, by one Cayer, by one Moore, and by one Sylvain, employees, opposed by the Madawaska Construction Company, employer. The Industrial Accident Commission awarded compensation in each case, and the employer appeals. Appeal dismissed, and decree affirmed.
Argued before WILSON, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, PATTANGALL, and FARRINGTON, JJ.
James C. Madigan, of Houlton, for appellant.
Appellees pro se.
PATTANGALL, J. Cases arising under Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1919, c. 238, as amended). On appeal from decree of Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation in each case. The sole issue before the commission was whether or not, at the time of receiving admittedly compensable injury, the injured men were employees of the Madawaska Construction Company.
Appellant claims that Gagnon, in favor of whose dependent widow award has been made, and Cayer were at that time employees of the Bailey Meter Company, and that Moore and Sylvain were employees of the Combustion Engineering Corporation.
It is admitted that all of the injured men were in the general employ of the Madawaska Construction Company, but it is urged that at the time their injuries were sustained they were in the temporary employ of the engineering corporation and the meter company under an arrangement entered into between these companies and the construction company.
The Madawaska Construction Company, a subsidiary of the Fraser Paper Company, was engaged in the erection of a paper mill. In connection with the construction of the mill, the Fraser Company contracted with the Combustion Engineering Corporation for the purchase of a pulverized fuel system and furnace and with the Bailey Meter Company for certain meter equipment.
The case assumes that the Fraser Company and the Madawaska Construction Company were so related that these contracts have the same effect as though they had been entered into by the latter company.
The contract with the Combustion Engineering Corporation is in evidence. The record does not disclose the exact terms of the contract with the Bailey Meter Company; but it would appear from the oral evidence that the two contracts were alike in their essential features.
The engineering corporation made a written proposal to the Fraser Company to furnish, according to detailed specifications, F. O. B. Madawaska the material for Lopulco furnace settings, applied to one Badenhausen water tube boiler, and to superintend the erection of the same.
The detailed specifications provided that the vendor should "furnish a competent man to superintend the erection of the settings described herein," also that vendor should "erect the Lopulco Water Screens, supplied on another contract." There was no mention in the proposal of labor or labor costs other than a provision that the purchaser should unload material from cars free of charge, and that an adjustment should be made for overtime charges. This proposal was accepted.
The contract for the Lopulco water screens, referred to above, was evidenced by a proposal on the part of the engineering corporation, accepted by the Fraser Company. This proposal was to furnish Lopulco pulverized fuel system and water screens in accordance with specifications which contained the following provisions: Vendor to
The engineering corporation had, therefore, sold to the Fraser Company certain appliances, machinery, and material which could only be properly assembled under expert supervision, and had engaged to furnish such supervision. It did not undertake to install the appliances and machinery, but simply to furnish an engineer possessing sufficient technical skill to superintend the installation.
The testimony Indicates a like situation with regard to the Bailey Meter Company. It sold to the Fraser Company, for the mill which was being constructed by the Madawaska Construction Company, certain equipment to be installed under the direction of its representative.
The vendor companies delivered the equipment. Their engineers undertook to supervise its installation. The necessary labor was provided by the vendee; certain of its regular employees in charge of foremen also in its regular employ being assigned to the work.
Orders were given by the engineers to the foremen and by the foremen to the laborers. The selection of the individual workmen, the authority to employ and to discharge them, remained in the purchaser. There was no direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyce's Case
...employment, he must be dealt with as the servant of the one to whom he is loaned. Torsey's Case, 130 Me. 65, 153 A. 807; Gagnon's Case, 128 Me. 155, 158, 146 A. 82; Wyman v. Berry, 106 Me. 43, 75 A. 123; Pease v. Gardner, 113 Me. 264, 93 A. 550; Wilbur v. Forgione & Romano Co., 109 Me. 521,......
-
Hoover v. Independent School Dist. of Shenandoah, Iowa
... ... From that judgment, an appeal has ... been taken to this court ... [264 N.W. 612] ... The ... evidence in the case does not raise a dispute as to the facts ... on which the decision must rest. We think the question ... presented, therefore, in view of its ... ...
-
Shamburg v. Shamburg
...P. 757; Parsons v. Daly & Sons, 114 Conn. 143, 158 A. 216; Allen-Garcia Co. v. Industrial Comm., 334 Ill. 390, 166 N.E. 78; Gagnon's Case, 128 Me. 155, 146 A. 82; Chisholm's Case, 238 Mass. 412, 131 N.E. 161; Oklahoma General Power Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 108 Okl. 251, 235 P. 1095; P......
-
Maloy v. A. E. Andrews and Son
...employment, he must be dealt with as the servant of the one to whom he is loaned. Torsey's Case, 130 Me. 65, 153 A. 807; Gagnon's Case, 128 Me. 155, 158, 146 A. 82; Wyman v. Berry, 106 Me. 43, 75 A. 123; Pease v. Gardner, 113 Me. 264, 93 A. 550; Wilbur v. Construction Co., 109 Me. 521, 85 A......