Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 38532
| Decision Date | 27 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 38532,38532 |
| Citation | 263 Minn. 289,116 N.W.2d 565 |
| Parties | Calvin PETTIS, Respondent, v. HARKEN, INC., and Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., Relators. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The evidence sustains the finding of the Industrial Commission that a farmer who was employed part-time by a fertilizer company in the sale and application of fertilizer to farm land was an employee of the company at the time he received injuries.
Smith, McLean, Peterson & Sullivan, Mankato, for relators.
John E. Simmonds, Mankato, for respondent.
This case is before us on writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Industrial Commission. The relators contend that the respondent is not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits for the reason that at the time he was injured he was an independent contractor and not an employee.
From the record it appears that in February 1959 Harlan Hohenstein, who had been engaged in business as an individual under the name of Minnesota Valley Fertilizer Company, incorporated with others under the name of Harken, Inc. Hohenstein became treasurer and secretary of the new company. This company carried on the business of sales and service of farm implements and liquid fertilizer.
The claimant, Calvin Pettis, owned and operated a farm for a number of years. For several months prior to December 1958 Hohenstein discussed with Pettis the possibility of his employment in the sale and application of fertilizer in his community. An agreement was entered into by which Pettis undertook to act as sales representative of the company. He agreed to solicit orders for anhydrous ammonia from farmers in the area and also agreed to do the work of applying the fertilizer. It was agreed that for all orders sold Pettis was to be compensated on the basis of 25cents per acre. For his service in applying the fertilizer he was to be paid on the basis of $1.25 per acre. To qualify for this employment it was necessary that Pettis have certain instructions with reference to sales practices and at least some training in the method of applying fertilizer to the land. Hohenstein furnished Pettis with a customers' order book and a product price list and instructed him with reference to procedures for taking and writing orders. It was agreed that Harken would bill the customers for the amount of the order and that Pettis would have nothing to do with the collections. Hohenstein furnished Pettis with certain advertising material, including playing cards, pen and pencil sets, and combination comb sets, which he distributed to prospective customers. The product of the company was advertised in local papers. All of this material advertised that Hohenstein or the Harken company was engaged in the sale and application of liquid fertilizer. Pettis did no advertising at any time. Harken had at least four other persons working part-time on a similar basis. One or two full-time employees were engaged in substantially the same work as Pettis some of the time.
Certain equipment was necessary to apply the fertilizer to the farm land. It was applied by means of a so-called applicator, which is a tank mounted on wheels and equipped with a pump and a number of 'teeth' or 'knives' which serve to inject the chemical into the ground to a depth of from 8 to 10 inches. The applicator is pulled behind a tractor. Pettis used his own tractor in this work and paid the cost of gas and oil used in its operation. The applicator was owned and supplied by the company. In addition, the company furnished a large supply tank, 16 to 18 feet long and 12 feet in circumference, which was used to keep a reserve supply of the chemical. This equipment contained hoses, gauges, valves, and other parts, the use of which required a certain amount of instruction and explanation. It also appears that temperature, which affects the flow and weight of the chemical, had to be taken into consideration in adjusting the equipment and that information on this factor would be secured by Pettis through telephone calls from the Harken company.
In the conduct of his work Pettis was required to note in his records the amount of fertilizer applied, together with other data. Pettis was not accountable for the value of the chemical fertilizer furnished to him but was required to report the amount used on each job. His only contact with Harken occurred when he needed materials or parts, when he was called upon to do a particular job, and when he furnished the company with information as to the number of acres completed and the amount of fertilizer used. No formal reports were submitted for this purpose. Hohenstein copied the data that Harken needed from the notebook kept by Pettis, and this information was used for billing customers.
During the time he was employed Pettis secured nine orders for fertilizer from farmers in the St. Peter area. He did the work of applying the fertilizer on five of these orders. One of the orders he received was for a quantity of fertilizer to be applied to the Klaseus farm. On April 29, 1959, he was preparing to move the equipment to the Klaseus farm to fill this order when Hohenstein came to him, told him that the company had a sizeable order to fill at the Windleschaefer farm and that he should take the equipment there and fill that order. Pursuant to Hohenstein's instructions, Pettis moved the equipment to the Windleschaefer farm. He would have preferred to fill the Klaseus order first, but there was evidence that Pettis received the impression that if he failed to follow Hohenstein's instructions he would not keep his job. Hohenstein undertook to explain to Klaseus the reason why Pettis could not fill his order on that particular day. He helped Pettis move the equipment. The accident from which Pettis sustained injuries occurred at the Windleschaefer farm. While Pettis was refilling the applicator from the supply tank, the liquid fertilizer sprayed in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
...contractor focuses on the nature and extent of control reserved by the person for whom the work is done."); Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d 565, 567-568 (Minn. 1962) ("The most important factor is the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance."). The second key......
-
In re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
...contractor focuses on the nature and extent of control reserved by the person for whom the work is done.”); Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 263 Minn. 289, 116 N.W.2d 565, 567–568 (1962) (“The most important factor is the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.”). The s......
-
Myers v. Workmen's Compensation Com'r
...all must be considered together. Rawson v. Jones-Winifrede Coal Company, 100 W.Va. 263, 130 S.E. 492, 43 A.L.R. 330; Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 263 Minn. 289, 116 N.W.2d 565. Thus, it becomes necessary to consider the entire circumstances of the relationship between the claimant and Lippert an......
-
Toughill v. Melcher
...held that decedent was an employee on the basis that the lease granted defendant complete control over the truck. In Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 263 Minn. 289, 116 N.W.2d 565, the claimant-farmer, a tractor owner, was employed part time by defendant fertilizer company to sell and apply defendan......