Horst v. Southern Idaho Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1930
• Docket Number: 5052
• Citation: 286 P. 369,49 Idaho 58
• Parties: ADAM G. HORST, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN IDAHO OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

286 P. 369

49 Idaho 58

ADAM G. HORST, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN IDAHO OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Respondents

No. 5052

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 19, 1930

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW - STATUS OF CLAIMANT FOR COMPENSATION-DETERMINATION OF-EVIDENCE.

1.Where evidence in compensation case is undisputed, it becomes a question of law for reviewing court to determine whether proper application of the law was made to the evidence.

2.Whether one claiming compensation was independent contractor or employee within meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act(C. S., secs. 6217, 6321) is to be determined from all the facts and circumstances established by the evidence, not from any single fact.

3.Member of partnership owning and operating gasoline filling station who was injured while engaged in building oil rack in gasoline storage plant erected by oil company under contract whereby company was to supply partnership with gasoline from that plant, held "independent contractor" and not "employee" of oil company within meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act(C. S., secs. 6217, 6321) where claimant was representative of partnership in operation of the plant, and operation was virtually turned over to the partnership, and claimant received no compensation direct from the oil company for his services.

4.Evidence that partnership engaged in operating gasoline filling station paid for gasoline and oil with checks signed in name of oil company did not prove that member of partnership, seeking compensation for injury under Workmen's Compensation Act(C. S., secs. 6217, 6321), was an employee of the oil company, where this practice was not shown to have been authorized by the oil company.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County.Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover compensation for injury.Judgment affirming order of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation and dismissing claim.Affirmed.

Affirmed.Costs to respondents.

Geo. H van de Steeg, for Appellant.

The application of the law to undisputed facts raises a question of law, not of fact.In this case there is no dispute or conflict in the evidence as to any essential fact; the contract is admitted, and the conduct of the parties pursuant to the contract is admitted.The only dispute is as to the legal effect of that contract and of the conduct of the parties under it.This is a question of law, not of fact.Therefore, whether Horst was an employee or an independent contractor is not a question of fact, but purely a question of law.(Johnston v. A. C. White Lumber Co.,37 Idaho 617, 217 P. 979;Zeitlow v. Smock,65 Ind.App. 643, 117 N.E. 665;Bidwell Coal Co. v. Davidson,187 Iowa 809, 8 A. L. R. 1058, 174 N.W. 592.)

The vital test in determining whether a person employed to do certain work is an independent contractor or a mere servant is the control over the work which is reserved by the employer.(14 R. C. L. 67;Taylor v. Blackwell Lbr. Co.,37 Idaho 707, 218 P. 356;Slycord v. Horn,179 Iowa 936, 7 A. L. R. 1285, 162 N.W. 249;State v. District Court,128 Minn. 43, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 795, 150 N.W. 211;Western Metal Sup. Co. v. Pillsbury,172 Cal. 407, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 907, 156 P. 491;Cameron v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal. 83, 159 P. 149.)

Scatterday & Stone, for Respondents.

Independent contractors are not employees within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and therefore are not entitled to compensation under that law.(Taylor v. Blackwell Lumber Co.,37 Idaho 707, 218 P. 356;Chapin Co. v. Scott,44 Idaho 566, 260 P. 172.)

Generally speaking, an independent contractor is one who assumes an independent employment and contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employers, same as to the results of his work.(1 Honnold's Compensation Law, p. 208, sec. 66;26 Cyc. 1546, 1547;Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, 6th ed., p. 396;Nichols v. Harvey-Hubbell, Inc.,92 Conn. 611, 19 A. L. R. 221, 225, 103 A. 835;Clark's Case, 124 Me. 47, 126 A. 18, 19;Moody v. Industrial Acc. Com., 204 Cal. 668, 60 A. L. R. 299, 269 P. 542.)

The mere fact that the employer reserves the right to supervise or inspect the work during its performance does not make the contractor a mere servant, where the mode and means of performance are within the control of such contractor.(14 R. C. L., p. 69, sec. 5;Federal Mining & Smelting Co. v. Thomas,99 Okla. 24, 225 P. 967;Salliotte v. King Bridge Co.,122 F. 378, 58 C. C. A. 466, 65 L. R. A. 620;Good v. Johnson,38 Colo. 440, 88 P. 439, 8 L. R. A., N. S., 896;Salmon v. Kansas City,241 Mo. 14, 145 S.W. 16, 39 L. R. A., N. S., 328;Larson v. American Bridge Co.,40 Wash. 224, 111 Am. St. 904, 82 P. 294;Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. 807, 159 P. 721, 724.)

An employment that is only occasional, or comes at uncertain times or at irregular intervals, and whose happening cannot be reasonably anticipated as certain or likely to occur or to become necessary or desirable, is a casual employment.(Flynn v. Carson,42 Idaho 141, 243 P. 818;Holmen Creamery Assn. v. Industrial Com.,167 Wis. 470, 167 N.W. 808;Oliphant v. Hawkinson,192 Iowa 1259, 33 A. L. R. 1433, 183 N.W. 805;Mitchell v. Maine Feldspar Co.,121 Me. 455, 118 A. 287; annotation in 33 A. L. R. 1447, 1452-1466.)

BUDGE, J. Givens, C. J., and Lee, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

This cause is here on appeal from an order of the district court of the seventh judicial district affirming an order of the Industrial Accident Board finding claimant was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and dismissing the claim.

The proposition to be resolved is whether at the time of the injury claimant was a workman within the meaning of that term as used and defined by the statute(C. S., secs. 6217, 6321), or an independent contractor, not an employee, of the Southern Idaho Oil Company as found by the Industrial Accident Board and district court.The evidence is undisputed, and it becomes a question of law for this court to determine whether proper application of the law was made to the evidence.(Burchett v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co.,48 Idaho 524, 283 P. 515.)

Claimant was one of a partnership of four owning and operating an automobile service or filling station in Nampa.In June 1925, the partnership entered into a written contract with the Southern Idaho Oil Company under the terms of which the oil company agreed to erect in the city of Nampa, and maintain for a term of five years, a wholesale gasoline storage plant, and to supply the partnership with gasoline and petroleum products therefrom at stipulated prices.The partnership agreed to operate the said wholesale plant and take and receive their gasoline thereat at their own expense, to handle, use and sell the gasoline and oils so furnished them by the company exclusively, to keep good and sufficient books of account of all gasoline and oil so used by them, to make weekly reports to the company, pay weekly for all gasoline and oil sold by them for cash and monthly for all gasoline and oil sold by them on credit.It was agreed that if the partnership failed to perform its part of the contract the same should become...