in re Keaney

• Decision Date: 27 February 1914
• Citation: 104 N.E. 438,217 Mass. 5
• Parties: In re KEANEY; In re TAPPAN et al.; In re EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 5

104 N.E. 438

In re KEANEY; In re TAPPAN et al.; In re EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSUR. CORPORATION, Limited.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1914

COUNSEL

Timothy F. Collins, of Boston, for appellant.

Sawyer Hardy & Stone, of Boston (John M. Morrison, of Boston, of counsel), for appellee Employers' Liability Assur Corporation.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The material facts as found by the Industrial Accident Board are these:

'The employer, Daniel L. Tappan, carried on a market garden in Arlington, Mass. At the time of the injury to Patrick Keaney, the employé, Mr. Tappan had in his employ four drivers and four helpers, who were engaged in the work of driving the produce of the farm to market and delivering it in the city of Boston. All of the driving and delivering was done by these four drivers and helpers. These men were employed the year round. When they were not engaged in the work of delivering the produce of the farm, they worked upon the farm, doing all kinds of farm work. In addition to these so-called drivers and helpers, Mr. Tappan employed upon his farm certain men who were engaged exclusively in the work of farm labor and who did nothing in the way of driving or helping, on the teams engaged in delivering. Mr. Keaney, the injured man, was such a laborer; that is, he was engaged exclusively in farm labor and had not been engaged at any time in the work of driving and helping to distribute the produce of the farm. At the time of the injury he was on the top of a load of hay, and hay was being gathered on Mr. Tappan's land for his own use and not for sale.

'Mr. Tappan procured a policy of insurance in the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, insuring his 'drivers and helpers' on an estimated pay roll of $1,650 a year. As a matter of fact, the pay roll of his 'drivers and helpers' was more than $1,650 a year. The policy was issued on the 31st day of July, 1912. Shortly before this time the employer had been informed that he would be liable in case the 'drivers and helpers' were injured while engaged in the work for which they were hired.

'The employer did not intend to have the Workmen's Compensation Act cover all of his farm laborers. What he desired to do was to protect himself from loss in case any of the men engaged in the work of distributing his farm produce were injured, and this was his sole purpose in procuring this policy of insurance.'

It is manifest from this statement of the facts that Patrick Keaney was a farm laborer. He performed the ordinary work which is done by one hired by a farmer to aid in the common incidents of agricultural employment. Rowley v. Ellis, 197 Mass. 391, 83 N.E. 1103. He was neither a driver nor helper in any proper meaning of those words, although occasionally he may have driven a team as a part of his farm work, and although in a most general sense he helped about the farm. His employer was a farmer.

The Workmen's Compensation Act was not intended to confer its advantages upon farm laborers, or to impose its burdens upon farmers. St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 1, § 2. The legislative policy of Exempting them from statutory benefits and liabilities established in addition to those of the common law disclosed in the Employers' Liability Act, St. 1909, c. 514, § 142 has been continued in the Workmen's Compensation Act. A farmer...