Ohm v. J.R. Simplot Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1950
• Docket Number: No. 7619,7619
• Citation: 70 Idaho 318,216 P.2d 952
• Parties: OHM v. J. R. SIMPLOT CO. et al.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 952

216 P.2d 952

70 Idaho 318

OHM v. J. R. SIMPLOT CO. et al.

No. 7619.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 7, 1950.

Thos. Y. Gwilliam, Nampa for appellant.

E. B. Smith, Boise, for respondents.

PORTER, Justice.

Appellant is a farmer. He does commercial hauling as a side line. His truck bears a commercial license. In August, 1948, respondent, J. R. Simplot Dehydrating Company, hereinafter referred to as the company, engaged appellant to haul potatoes from railroad cars in Mountain Home to the air base strip near that city. There were fifteen or twenty other truckers also engaged in hauling such potatoes.

The potatoes were to be hauled from the railroad cars as such cars arrived in Mountain Home. The potatoes were in sacks. They were to be dumped on the ground at the air base strip and the sacks returned to the freight cars. The company had a 'boss at the cars' who pointed out the cars to be unloaded. There was, apparently, an employee of the company at the air base strip who sometimes told the truckers to move up their trucks when the pile of dumped potatoes was becoming too high, and instructed them not to cut any of the sacks. During the work the company also advised the trackers to take better care of the empty sacks as they were being lost.

It was agreed that appellant should receive four cents per sack for hauling the potatoes; and that he should receive an additional one cent per sack if he continued to work until the entire job of hauling potatoes was completed. Appellant was to furnish his own truck and bear the expenses thereof. He hired his son and a Mr. Matson to assist him in the hauling, and paid each man $4.00 per car. There were no hours fixed as to when appellant should begin or quit his work but seven o'clock A.M. was the earliest he could get on the air base and it was generaly closed at five o'clock P.M.

Appellant was paid by drafts from time to time to which were attached statements on each of which appeared, substantially, the words 'contract unloading & hauling potatoes at four cents per sack with one cent bonus if job is completed.' The drafts covered the amount due appellant without deduction of withholding tax, old age benefits or unemployment compensation contributions. Neither appellant nor his helpers were carried on the company's payroll.

On September 11, 1948, appellant was accidentally thrown from his truck while sitting on some empty sacks on the bed of his truck. He received a personal injury consisting of fractures in two places of the bones of his right leg below the knee. He was not, thereafter, able to work in hauling potatoes. His son and assistant continued to haul potatoes until the entire job was completed. Appellant was paid for such completed work, receiving the bonus of one cent per sack for all potatoes hauled.

Appellant filed a claim for his injury with the Industrial Accident Board under the Workmen's Compensation Law, I.C. § 72-101 et seq. After a hearing on such claim, the board held that appellant was an independent contractor and entered its order denying compensation to appellant. From such order appellant has duly appealed to this court.

By his specifications of error, appellant urges in effect that the board erred in finding that the relationship between the company and claimant was that of contracting principal on the company's part, and independent contractor on claimant's part; and that the board erred in not finding that the relationship was that of employer and employee and that appellant was entitled to compensation.

The authorities have suggested various tests for determining whether a contract results in the relationship of employer and employee, or in the relationship of principal and independent contractor. None of the suggested tests, standing alone, appears to be wholly decisive. In E. T. Chapin Co. v. Scott, 44 Idaho 566, at page 571, 260 P. 172, 173, the court listed the most important tests as follows: 'Right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for; power to discharge; and method of payment.' The chief consideration in determining whether one is an independent contractor appears to be whether the employer has the right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for. Taylor v. Blackwell Lumber Co., 37 Idaho 707, 218 P. 356.

In Pinson v. Minidoka Highway District, 61 Idaho 731, at page 737, 106 P.2d 1020 1022, this court said: 'The general test is the right to control and direct the activities of the employee, or the power to control the details of the work to be performed and to determine how it shall be done, and whether it shall stop or continue, that gives rise to the relationship of employer and employee, and where the employee comes under the direction and control of the person to whom his services have been furnished, the latter becomes his temporary employer, and liable for compensation.'

This general test was approved and followed in the recent case of Laub v. Meyer, Inc., Idaho, 214 P.2d 884.

An independent contractor represents his employer only as to the results of his work and not as to the means whereby it is to be acomplished. The fact that the work is to be done under the direction and to the satisfaction of representatives of the employer, does not, of itself, change the relationship to that of master and servant. Laub v. Meyer, Inc., supra; In re General Electric Co., 66 Idaho 91, 156 P.2d 190; Joslin v. Idaho Times Publishing Co., 56 Idaho 242, 53 P.2d 323; In re Pacific Nat. Life Assur. Co., Idaho, 212 P.2d 397.

A scrutiny of the facts in this case discloses that some of such facts tend to show the relationship of employer and employee; while other and substantial facts tend to show the relationship of contracting principal and independent contractor under the recognized tests as...