Greenlee v. Drees
| Decision Date | 12 August 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 40043,40043 |
| Citation | 274 Minn. 538,144 N.W.2d 774 |
| Parties | Elmer GREENLEE, Appellant, v. Ralph DREES, Defendant and Third-Party-Plaintiff, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party-Defendant, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where an injured workman was one of four carpenters employed on an hourly basis in the construction of a home for the owner, who was present while the work was in progress and who decided how much work he and members of his family would do and how much of the work would be left to others; where there was no partnership among the carpenters or contract or agreement to complete the job at any particular time; and where they could quit whenever they chose and were subject to dismissal at the pleasure of the owner, the relationship existing between the injured workman and the owner of the premises was that of employer-employee and not of employer-independent contractor.
2. The provisions of a personal and farm liability policy which provided that the insurer would become legally obligated to pay damages for bodily injury sustained by a 'residence employee,' defined in the policy as one whose duties were incident to the ownership, maintenance, or use of any dwelling in which the insured maintains a residence, had application generally to domestic or service employees engaged in work in or about a dwelling maintained as a residence and did not apply to a carpenter engaged in the construction of a home.
Baudler & Baudler, Austin, for appellant Greenlee. Plunkett & Plunkett, Austin, for appellant Drees.
Moonan & Senn, Waseca, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying the alternative motion of plaintiff, Elmer Greenlee, and defendant and third-party plaintiff, Ralph Drees, for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law or for a new trial. The plaintiff recovered a verdict for injuries sustained in an accident while he was employed doing carpentry work on the Drees premises. It is first contended that the trial court erred in holding that at the time of the accident Greenlee was an employee rather than an independent contractor. It is further argued that if Greenlee's status was, in fact, that of an employee at the time of his injury, he was a 'residence employee,' as defined by a personal and farm liability policy issued to Drees by the third-party defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and that under the terms of that policy the company is liable for the amount of the verdict. The trial court held that under the provisions of the policy, the risk was not insured.
It appears from the record that the third-party plaintiff Drees is a farmer who operates a 240-acre farm which he owns together with an additional 200 acres which he rents. He employs no farm laborers, the work being done by himself and his older sons. In early 1963, Drees decided to construct a new dwelling on his premises. He consulted the manager of a lumber and building-material company in a neighboring town. The manager prepared plans and estimated the total cost of the proposed structure. Drees inquired as to who could build the house for him, and the manager suggested the names of workmen in the vicinity who did construction work. In the course of their discussions, the manager agreed to supply and pay the construction workers, but said that if this were done it would be necessary to charge 50 cents per hour per man in order to defray costs including social security taxes and workmen's compensation insurance. Drees did not wish to incur this expense. He contacted four of the carpenters in the vicinity suggested by the manager and engaged them to work on an hourly basis. These workmen included Elmer Greenlee, the original plaintiff in this action.
The workmen proceeded to stake out the house and began construction of it in accordance with the plans and specifications provided by the building manager. It would appear that the communications between the carpenters and the defendant Drees were conducted largely through Justin Teiman, one of the four carpenters, and that if any problems arose with reference to the work, Teiman would contact the manager of the lumberyard. Each man was paid $1.75 an hour. No one was paid for supervising the work. About 10 days or 2 weeks the job commenced, Greenlee was injured. He fell from faulty scaffolding which was erected by Drees and his sons.
The practice followed by the group of carpenters in that particular rural community, when engaged to work for individual employers who do not wish to be burdened with the cost of unemployment compensation or other expenses deriving from the employer-employee relationship, was explained by one of the carpenters in this statement:
1. The facts which point to the actual relationship of the parties are these: It is undisputed that Drees owned the premises; that the house was being built according to plans provided him by the manager of the lumber company; that Drees directed where it was to be built; that he and his sons were present on the job, did part of the work, and decided how much of the work they would do themselves and what would be left to the others. There was no partnership or sharing of profits among the four workmen. There was no contract or agreement to complete the job at any particular time. They could quit whenever they chose and were subject to dismissal at the pleasure of Drees.
In support of their argument that Greenlee was, in fact, an independent contractor rather than an employee, appellants rely on those authorities, usually workmen's compensation cases, which discuss the legal distinctions between an employee and an independent contractor. 1 In Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 91, 132 N.W.2d 711, 715, we said that it is usually a fact question:
It is unnecessary to discuss the numerous authorities which deal with this subject. It may be said that the finding of the trial court is supported by Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co., 167 Minn. 72, 208 N.W. 421, and Norris v. Kaempfer, 274 App.Div. 857, 81 N.Y.S.2d 808, cases dealing with similar fact situations where workmen employed under a loose arrangement subject to the employer's right of control and right to discharge at any time were held not to be independent contractors. It seems to us that the situation here is no different than if Drees had gone to an employment agency and hired four carpenters. It would hardly be realistic to say that Drees had four independent contractors engaged in the project of doing carpentry work on a one-family dwelling nor is the record persuasive that the type of work these men were doing involved technical skill of a nature that could not be supervised by the defendant Drees so as to preclude the master-servant status. Drees and his sons did part of the work themselves and he and a neighbor constructed the faulty scaffolding on which the workman was injured. We agree that in the context of the record the trial court's finding of the employer-employee status is fairly established.
2. Appellants next argue that if it is assumed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gareis v. Benefit Ass'n of Ry. Emp. Ins. Co.
...415 P.2d 74; 13 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 7384.3 See, LeRoux v. Edmundson, 276 Minn. 120, 148 N.W.2d 812; Greenlee v. Drees, 274 Minn. 538, 144 N.W.2d 774; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250, 58 N.W.2d 855, 50 A.L.R.2d 108.4 See, Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn. v. ......
-
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. of Des Moines v. Kangas
...it does not legitimately exist. See, e.g., Farkas v. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co., 285 Minn. 324, 173 N.W.2d 21 (1969); Greenlee v. Drees, 274 Minn. 538, 144 N.W.2d 774 (1966); State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters v. Casualty Underwriters, Inc., 266 Minn. 536, 124 N.W.2d 185 (1963); see, also, cases......
-
Eastern Aviation and Marine Underwriters, Inc. v. Gilbertson
...of construction of a contract is to do no more than to give effect to the plain meaning of the language. Greenlee v. Drees, 274 Minn. 538, 544, 144 N.W.2d 774, 778 (1966). Although the policy in this case states that the insurance covers the named insured and any person using the aircraft w......