Jacobson v. Weidman Lumber Co., 9.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtWIEST
Citation246 Mich. 189,224 N.W. 355
Docket NumberNo. 9.,9.
Decision Date29 March 1929

246 Mich. 189
224 N.W. 355


No. 9.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 29, 1929.

Certioari to Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Magnus Jacobson, employee, opposed by the Weidman Lumber Company, employer, and the State Accident Fund. To review an award of compensation by the Department of Labor and Industry, the employer and accident fund bring certiorari. Award vacated.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

[224 N.W. 355]

Thomas J. Landers, of Ironwood (Cadigan & Cadigan, of Superior, Wis., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Derham & Derham, of Iron Mountain, for defendants.

[224 N.W. 356]


Plaintiff was awarded compensation for the loss of an eye and defendants review the holding of the Depatment of Labor and Industry by certiorari, claiming that plaintiff was an independent contractor and, in any event, has not lost an eye.

If plaintiff was an independent contractor, defendants are not liable.

Defendant lumber company was constructing a bed for a logging railway, and plaintiff, together with three companions, going about the country taking such jobs for their mutual benefit, took the job of clearing and grading about 1,300 feet of the way at $13 per 100 linel feet, and were to each pay $1 per day for board and lodging at the lumber company's camp. The first day, while plaintiff was working on the job with his companions, a chip from a tree he was chopping stuck his right eye. Plaintiff received treatment, and, at the time of the hearing before the deputy commissioner, his injury had healed with a retention of 10 to 20 per cent. vision in the eye.

We have many times defined what constitutes an independent contractor and need not repeat what we have said on the subject. Plaintiff was master of his own time in performing the work of producing the ultimate result calling for the agreed compensation to himself and companions. Inspection of the work by defendant lumber company as it progrressed, with direction conforming to tis proper completion, and the furnishing of tools and a team by defendant lumber company, did not change the relation to that of master ans servant. The rule applied in Odle v. Charcoal Iron Co., 217 Mich. 469, 187 N. W. 243, and Donithan v. Michigan Iron & Chemical Co., 227 Mich. 609, 199 N. W. 607, governs this case.

The award is vacated, with costs to defendants.


To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kinney v. State Indus. Acc. Commission
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 1 Febrero 1967
    ......Progress Serv. Co., 9 A.D.2d 170, 192 N.Y.S.2d 758, affirmed 9 N.Y.2d 880, 216 N.Y.S.2d 697, ......
  • Bert Baker, Inc. v. Ryce, 52.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 17 Marzo 1942
    ...right of inspection is reserved does not necessarily constitute an employer and employee relationship. See Jacobson v. Weidman Lumber Co., 246 Mich. 189, at page 190, 224 N.W. 355, where Odle v. Charcoal Iron Co., 217 Mich. 489, 187 N.W. 243, and Donithan v. Michigan Iron & Chemical Co., 22......
  • Monk v. Charcoal Iron Co. of Am., 11.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 29 Marzo 1929
  • Slessor v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Kalamazoo, 87.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 4 Enero 1932
    ...Compensation Act. The Compensation Act is for the benefit of injured employees and not injured employers. See Jacobson v. Weidman Lumber Co., 246 Mich. 189, 224 N. W. 355. Mr. Slessor contracted to produce a result; the means being left to his selection and control. The fact that Mr. Slesso......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT