In re Winslow
| Decision Date | 14 March 1919 |
| Citation | 232 Mass. 458,122 N.E. 561 |
| Parties | WINSLOW'S CASE. In re TOWN OF MANSFIELD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.
Proceedings for compensation for injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George Winslow, the employé, opposed by the Town of Mansfield, the employer and self-insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award affirmed by the superior court, and the employer and insurer appeals. Decree of the superior court reversed, and decree directed to be entered in favor of employer and insurer.
Henry F. Wood, of Boston, for appellant.
John R. Halliday, of Mansfield, for employé.
The claimant was engaged in the business of stable keeper, teaming and jobbing. He let, to work for the town on its roads, a cart, pair of horses and himself as driver for the single and undivided price of $6 per day. His work was principally driving, but as occasion required he got off and shoveled and raked. The matter of handling the horses was left entirely to him and he managed them in his own way. He had used a cart of his own most of the time, but on the day of his accident he furnished a cart which he did not own. The accident occurred while he was driving off the road to dump his cart and was caused by the giving way of the king bolt. The town was liable under St. 1913, c. 807, § 1, for injuries received by ‘such laborers, workmen and mechanics employed by it as receive injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment,’ in general according to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1911, c. 751).
The facts show plainly that the claimant was an independent contractor. He furnished the team and driver for one price. The duty of the care and management of the horses and cart rested upon him as such contractor. His injury occurred in connection with the performance of that duty. The case is covered in principle in every particular by Centrello's Case, 122 N. E. 560, just decided.
It follows that the claimant does not come within the terms of St. 1913, c. 807, § 1, on which alone liability of the town can be based.
Decree reversed.
Decree to be entered in favor of town.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Board of Police Commr. v. Beach
-
Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries
... ... State Workmen's ... Ins. Fund, 105 A. 90; Southern Const. Co. v ... Industrial Comm., 112 Okla. 246, 240 P. 613; Wagoner ... v. Davis Const. Co., 240 P. 618; Eckert's Case, 233 ... Mass. 577, 124 N.E. 421; Centrello Case, 122 N.E. 560; ... Zeitlow v. Smock, 117 N.E. 665; Winslow's Case, ... 122 N.E. 561; State Industrial Comm. v. Wiseman, 183 ... N.Y.S. 112; Smith v. General Motor Cab Co., 80 L. J ... K. B. 839, 1 N. C. C. A. 576; Chisholm v. Walter, 2 ... B. W. C. C. 261; Odle v. Charcoal Iron Co., 217 ... Mich. 469, 187 N.W. 243; Dobson v. Portland Sebago ... ...
-
State ex rel. Beach v. Beach
...M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lake County, 287 Ill. 337, 122 N.E. 526; Catholic Bishops of Chicago v. Village of Pallas Park, 286 Ill. 400, 122 N.E. 561; Cartwright v. Warner, 60 N.Y.S. 769; Baker v. Nassau, 77 N.H. 347; 43 C. J. 823; Downs v. Swan, 111 Md. 53, 73 A. 653; Dangel v. Williams, 99 A.......
-
Ferullo's Case
... ... 319, 178 N.E. 638. This is the ordinary situation where a taxicab is driven by its owner. It was also clear that the workmen's compensation law did not give protection to drivers who were independent contractors. Centrello's Case, 232 [331 Mass. 638] Mass. 456, 457, 122 N.E. 560; Winslow's Case, 232 Mass. 458, 122 N.E. 561; Eckert's Case, 233 Mass. 577, 124 N.E. 421; Robichaud's Case, 234 Mass. 60, 124 N.E. 890. But it had been further held not long before the passage of the 1930 statute that, even though the driver was in the general employ of the insured as an employee and not ... ...