Offutt v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Decision Date02 December 1968
Docket NumberNo. 24987,24987
Citation437 S.W.2d 127
PartiesLloyd B. OFFUTT, Claimant-Respondent, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurer-Appellant, and Maurino and Hoover Quarries, Employer-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Harold L. Lowenstein, Rogers, Field & Gentry, Kansas City, for appellants.

Homer R. Hines, L. R. Magee, Kansas City, for respondent.

MAUGHMER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment affirming an award of workmen's compensation benefits. There is no real dispute as to the facts. The alleged employer, Maurino and Hoover Quarries, Inc. was engaged in quarrying rock, sand and gravel. It maintained loading bins at its quarry near Cleveland, Cass County, Missouri. The claimant, Lloyd B. Offutt, was the owner and operator of a dump truck. He hauled rock and gravel for himself. For some 20 years he had frequently hauled rock, sand and gravel in fulfillment of orders therefor which had been phoned in by customers to Maurino. There was an oral agreement in existence in conformity with which the cost of the product was billed directly to Offutt, who collected this amount, plus a charge for hauling, from the customer. Mr. Offutt was paid no wages by Maurino. There was a current price at which claimant could buy from Maurino. Some times he bought from the company to fill orders which had been placed with him personally, and some times he bought and made delivery on orders which had been placed with Maurino. This particular quarry had been operating for eight or nine years and Offutt had been a regular buyer during the whole period. He was always billed for any rock which he received and hauled. He was never paid any wage or remuneration of any kind by the company.

On August 16, 1963, claimant was loading his truck from one of the gravel bins when he slipped and fell on some loose gravel, resulting in injury to his right arm and right shoulder. There was no denial of the accident or injury. This particular load of gravel was for a Mr. Max Beer, who had phoned his order to Maurino, whose foreman, Clarence Kihn, transmitted it to claimant. Mr. Offutt, after the injury finished loading his truck and made delivery to Mr. Beer. He worked the rest of that day, then part time until he entered a hospital for surgery on October 29, 1963. Mr. Offutt informed the superintendent and foreman Kihn on the day of the accident that he had been injured. The company provided no medical assistance.

The referee found for claimant and entered an award totaling $6684.67, consisting of $950 for the maximum healing period at the maximum rate of compensation $1484.67 for medical aid and $4,250 for permanent, partial disability (100 weeks at $42.50 per week). The Commission affirmed and in turn, the circuit court affirmed. On appeal the alleged employer and insurer make three assignments of error. They say (1) claimant was not an employee; (2) the Commission erred in allowing the maximum compensation rate and (3) it was error to allow for medical aid received more than 90 days after the accident.

The function of an appellate court in reviewing an award by the Industrial Commission was stated by this court in Liverman v. Bill Wagner's 33--71 By-Pass Service Station et al., Mo.App., 384 S.W.2d 107, 109:

'An appellate court, in reviewing an award by the Industrial Commission, must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Harper v. Home Imp. Co. et al., Mo., 235 S.W.2d 558. Neither this court nor the circuit court may substitute its judgment for that of the Commission but rather must approve and affirm the Commission's award if upon the whole record it is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Constitution of 1945, Art. V, Sec. 22, V.A.M.S.; Brown v. Griesedieck Western Brewing Co. of Missouri et al., Mo.App., 250 S.W.2d 803; Long v. Mississippi Lime Co. of Mo. et al., Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 167, 170.'

Appellants assert that claimant was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, Chapter 287, V.A.M.S. Two employee relationships are recognized under the Act--regular employees and statutory employees. Section 287.020(1), V.A.M.S. states:

'The word 'employee' as used in this chapter shall be construed to mean every person in the service of any employer, as defined in this chapter, under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, or under any appointment or election, including executive officers of corporations. * * *'

Section 287.030, V.A.M.S. tells us that an employer means any person 'using the services of another for pay.'

Section 287.040(1), V.A.M.S. provides:

'Any person who has work done under contract on or about his premises which is an operation of the usual business which he there carries on shall be deemed an employer and shall be liable under this chapter to such contractor, his subcontractors, and their employees, when injured or killed on or about the premises of the employer while doing work which is in the usual course of his business.'

Many factors have been considered by the missouri courts in determining whether or not a person rendering services is an employee or an independent contractor. These factors include the exercise of actual control, the right to discharge, the method of payment, who furnishes the tools and whether the employer directs the details of the work. Lawrence v. William Gebhardt, Jr. & Son et al., Mo.App., 311 S.W.2d 97. However, in many cases it has been held that the ultimate and decisive test is the right of control. Fisher v. Hennessey, Mo.App., 329 S.W.2d 225; Pratt v. Reed & Brown Hauling Company, Mo.App., 361 S.W.2d 57, 63. Under the undisputed facts in the case before us we believe claimant did not meet the requirements of a regular employee. He furnished his own working tools, was paid no wages and certainly as to the details of work he was neither controlled by nor subject to the control of Maurino Company.

The Supreme Court in Ward v. Curry et al., Mo., 341 S.W.2d 830, 834 specifically set forth the purpose of this 'statutory employee' section by declaring:

'The purpose of Section 287.040 is to prevent employers from evading the liability placed upon them by the Workmen's Compensation Act by doing through independent contractors what they would otherwise do through direct employees; and the federal and state courts respect and rigidly enforce its provisions. (Citing cases).'

In Shireman v. Rainen Home Furnishers, Inc. et al., Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 64, 68, this court named the three prerequisites required to give rise to the statutory employee relationship. There we said:

'Under this statute our courts have repeatedly held that three elements must be present before one can be held to be a statutory employee. The evidence must show (1) that the work was performed under a contract, (2) that the injury occurred on or about the premises of the employer, and (3) that the injury must have occurred while the employee was doing work in the usual course of employer's business.'

We reiterated the same requirements in Johnson v. Medlock et al., Mo.App., 420 S.W.2d 57, 61.

We have concluded that claimant under the facts here was a statutory employee. He had a contract with the company under which it furnished rock and gravel at a specified price for fulfillment of orders made to him or to the company and by it turned over to him. Clearly the injury occurred 'on or about' the company premises--actually right next to one of its loading bins. The injury occurred while claimant was loading gravel from a company bin into one of his own trucks to fill an order phoned in by an individual to Maurino's foreman and by the foreman 'turned over' to claimant. The production and marketing of gravel was clearly 'in the usual course' of the quarry company's business. It is not disputed that the injury occurred on premises that were under the exclusive control of the alleged employer. In State ex rel. Potaschnick et al. v. Fulbright et al., 350 Mo. 858, 169 S.W.2d 59, 61, exclusive control was ruled to mean premises where the public did not have an equal right to use them along with the employer and the independent contractor. The Commission in its award in the case before us did not specifically declare that claimant was a statutory employee. However, we hold that he was and that he was not a regular employee.

Appellant's second point is that it was error to allow the maximum...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Huff v. Union Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1980
    ...of painting an outdoor advertising sign. Accord: State v. Fulbright, 350 Mo. 858, 169 S.W.2d 59 (1943) and Offutt v. Travelers Insurance Company, 437 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App.1968). Although the foregoing construction of "premises" has been applied only to § 287.040.1 in the cases, the same const......
  • Wilson v. Altruk Freight Systems, Inc., No. 17509
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 1991
    ...13 (Mo.1966); Anderson v. Benson Manufacturing Company, 338 S.W.2d 812 (Mo.1960); Brown, 537 S.W.2d 685; Offutt v. Travelers Insurance Company, 437 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App.1968). (II) WORK DONE ON PREMISES: The plaintiff also complains that element (b), that the work must be done "on or about th......
  • Brown v. Missouri Lumber Transports, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1970
    ...v. Wagner, Mo.App., 384 S.W.2d 107, 109(2, 3); Miller v. Sleight & Hellmuth Ink Co., Mo., 436 S.W.2d 625, 628(6); Offutt v. Travelers Ins. Co., Mo.App., 437 S.W.2d 127, 129; Dickhaut v. Bilyeu Refrigerated Transport Corp., Mo., 441 S.W.2d 54, 56(1); Stroud v. Zuzich, Mo., 271 S.W.2d 549; Sh......
  • Boatman v. Superior Outdoor Advertising Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1972
    ...public does not have an equal right to use them along with the employer and the independent contractor. Offutt v. Travelers Insurance Company, Mo.App., 437 S.W.2d 127, 130; Baker v. Iowa-Missouri Walnut Log Co., Mo.App., 270 S.W.2d 73, 76(5). If the alleged statutory employer is an invitee ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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