Nelson Bros. & Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 21 April 1928
• Docket Number: No. 17676.,17676.
• Citation: 330 Ill. 27,161 N.E. 113
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: NELSON BROS. & CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

330 Ill. 27

161 N.E. 113

NELSON BROS. & CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 17676.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1928.

Commissions' Opinion.

Error to Circuit Court, Jersey County; E. S. Smith, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frank Drury, claimant, opposed by Nelson Bros. & Co. An order of the Industrial Commission granting an award was confirmed by the circuit court, and Nelson Bros. & Co. bring error.

Reversed, and award set aside.

D. E. Keefe, of East St. Louis (Harold G. Baker, of East St. Louis, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

R. C. Chappell, of Jerseyville, for defendant in error.

PARTLOW, C.

The Industrial Commission made an award against Nelson Bros. & Co. on account of personal injuries sustained by Frank Drury. The award was confirmed by the circuit court of Jersey county, and the case is before this court on a writ of error.

The evidence shows that Drury was a carpenter and contractor at Jerseyville, Ill. He had a shop on the rear of the lot where he lived, and in this shop he had certain machinery, including a combination planer and saw. On his shop he had a sign which read, ‘Carpenter and Jobbing Shop.’ He did various kinds of work for persons who needed his services, and he employed held to assist him when necessary. Nelson Bros. & Co. were contractors and builders in Jerseyville. On October 5, 1923, Nelson Bros. & Co. had some pieces of lumber four inches by six which they wanted sawed into pieces two inches by four. Drury was engaged to do the work, for which he was to receive $1.25 per hour for his labor and the use of his machine. The lumber was sent to Drury's shop. While he was engaged in doing the work, his right hand came in contact with the saw and was seriously and permanently injured. Drury claims that he was an employee of Nelson Bros. & Co. and that they were liable under the Compensation Act. They claim that Drury was an independent contractor, and that they were not liable under the Compensation Act.

Section 5 of the Compensation Act (Smith's Stat. 1923, p. 1332), provides that the term ‘employee’ shall be construed to mean every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written. It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast general rule or state definite facts by which the status of men working and contracting together can definitely be defined in all cases as employees or independent contractors. Each case must depend on its own facts. Ordinarily no one feature of the relation is determinative, but all must be construed together. Bristol & Gale Co. v. Industrial Com., 292 Ill. 16, 126 N. E. 599. The right to control the manner of doing the work is the principal consideration which determines whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Decatur Railway & Light Co. v. Industrial Board, 276 Ill. 472, 114 N. E. 915. The test of the relationship is the right to control. It is not the fact of actual interference with the control, but the right to interfere, that makes the difference between an independent contractor and a servant or agent. An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result, but in the actual execution of the work he is not under the orders or control of the person for whom he does the work, but may use his own discretion in things not specified. An independent contractor is one who contracts to do a specific piece of work, furnishing his own assistance, and executing the work either entirely in accordance with his own ideas or in accordance with a plan previously given him by the person for whom the work is done, without his being subject to the orders of the latter in respect to the details of the work. La May v. Industrial Com., 292 Ill. 76, 126 N. E. 604;Meredosia Levee & Drainage District...