Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Bros., 30.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 30.,30. |
| Citation | 206 N.W. 322,232 Mich. 593 |
| Parties | HANISKO v. FITZPATRICK BROS. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Louis Hanisko, claimant, opposed by Fitzpatrick Bros., employer, and the General Casualty & Surety Company, insurer. To review an award of compensation to applicant by the Department of Labor an Industry, the employer and insurer bring certiorari. Award vacated.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.M. J. MacGregor, of Ironwood, for applicant.
Derham & Derham, of Iron Mountain, for respondents.
Certiorari to the department of labor and industry. On April 24, 1925, the department awarded compensation to plaintiff. Fitzpatrick Bros., copartners, who were held as the employers, and their surety here contend that plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that therefore the award should be vacated.
Fitzpatrick Bros. had contracted with the city of Ironwood to collect and dispose of garbage. Their employees did the work for some time. Then it was agreed by and between Fitzpatrick Bros. and plaintiff that plaintiff take over the collection and disposal of garbage under the contract with the city. Under such agreement plaintiff supplied two teams, which he fed and cared for, and he supplied wagons and equipment. Usually he himself worked. Sometimes he did not. He hired such men as he required. He could discharge them or any of them. He laid out and used, as he thought, best routes for collection of garbage. His hours were not fixed. It was upon him to produce results agreeable to the contract with the city, nothing more. For this he was to and did receive from Fitzpatrick Bros. $30 per day. The less he had to pay to helpers the more he had for himself. The number of him employees varied. So his daily profits were not uniform in amount.
Twice a month he went to the office of Fitzpatrick Bros. The amount due him was determined by the number of workdays in the half month at $30 per day. At his direction a part of the sum due was disbursed by Fitzpatrick Bros.' checks to his employees. The remainder plaintiff himself received. Fitzpatrick Bros. were interested in seeing that plaintiff's work met the requirements of the contract with the city, and to that end and extent they had right of interference and control and the right to terminate the agreement with plaintiff. Orders or suggestions from the health officers were forwarded to plaintiff.
In 26 Cyc. 1546, adopted by this court in Zoltowski v. Ternes Coal & Lumber Co., 214 Mich. 231, 183 N. W. 11, an independent contractor is defined:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Appeal Bd. of Mich. Employment Sec. Commission
...his employer as to the means by which the result is to be accomplished but only as to the 'result of the work.' Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Brothers, 232 Mich. 593, 206 N.W. 322, 323. It is a complete perversion of this principle to employ the control exception (an independent contractor does no......
-
Laughlin v. Mich. Motor Freight Lines
...96, 241 N.W. 209, quoting from Zoltowski v. Ternes Coal & Lumber Co., 214 Mich. 231, 233, 183 N.W. 11. See, also, Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Bros., 232 Mich. 593, 595, 206 N.W. 322, and cases cited. The jury here as in Cooper v. Interstate Motor Freight Co., 264 Mich. 131, 249 N.W. 457, 458, an......
-
Schullo v. Village of Nashwauk, 24922.
...logs for a lumber company at an agreed price per thousand was not an independent contractor. The respondents cite Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Bros., 206 N. W. 322, 232 Mich. 593. There the plaintiff, who in effect took over the work of the defendants, who had a contract with the city for the rem......
-
Janofski v. Fed. Land Bank
...a relation of employer and employee.’ Eberly v. Sanders Lumber Co., 282 Mich. 315, 276 N.W. 462, 464. See also Hanisko v. Fitzpatrick Brothers, 232 Mich. 593, 206 N.W. 322;Odle v. Charcoal Iron Co., 217 Mich. 469, 187 N.W. 243;Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co., 200 Mich. 597, 166 N.W. 876; and ......