Slessor v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Kalamazoo

• Decision Date: 04 January 1932
• Docket Number: No. 87.,87.
• Parties: SLESSOR v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF KALAMAZOO et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

256 Mich. 389

240 N.W. 13

SLESSOR

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF KALAMAZOO et al.

No. 87.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 4, 1932.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Margaret Slessor, to recover for the death of her husband, Alexander Slessor, alleged employee, opposed by the Board of Education of the City of Kalamazoo, alleged employer, and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation. From an award of compensation, defendants appeal.

Award vacated.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Marvin J. Schaberg, of Kalamazoo, for appellants.

Jackson, Fitzgerald & Dalm, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.

WIEST, J.

Defendant board of education purchased from Mower & Rose, dealers, certain gymnasium equipment, to be installed by the seller in a school building. Mower & Rose were not operating under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and employed Alexander Slessor, who was an employer operating under the act, to make the installation. Mr. Slessor was a general contractor, and for seven or eight years had installed gymnasium equipment for Mower & Rose, collected pay for doing so, and paid his employees. While about the work of installation, Mr. Slessor was killed, and the Department of Labor and Industry held the defendant board of education liable to pay compensation to his widow.

The principal question is whether Mr. Slessor was an employee of the school board, by reason of the fact that Mower & Rose were not operating under the Compensation Act, or an independent contractor. Mr. Slessor employed men, and for that reason elected to come under the act. At the time of his death, Mr. Slessor was working with his men. He undertook to carry to completion a definite piece of work in his own line of business. He was an employer, paid his employees with his own checks, furnished his own tools, and was free to render, at will, service to others. He was not on any pay roll. He was an independent contractor.

There was evidence that an employee of the defendant board directed where certain of the equipment should be placed. This was not control of Mr. Slessor, but an aid in the performance of his work.

Plaintiff invokes the following provision of the statute: ‘That one (1) employed by a contractor who has contracted with a county, city, township, incorporated village, school district or the state, through its representatives, shall not be considered an employee of the state, county, city, township, incorporated village or school district which made the contract, when such contractor is subject to this act.’ Section 8413, Compiled Laws 1929.

Mower & Rose contracted with the school board. Mr. Slessor was not an employee of Mower & Rose, but an independent contractor, operating under the Compensation Act. Unless it be found that Mr. Slessor was an employee of the school board, then the claim was barred because not made within six months after the accident.

Suppose we consider the contract for installation one between the school...