Southern Pac. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah
Decision Date | 27 September 1927 |
Docket Number | 4552 |
Citation | 264 P. 965,71 Utah 248 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH et al |
Rehearing Denied March 9, 1928.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph Surrage opposed by the Southern Pacific Company, employer. The commission awarded compensation, and the employer institutes original proceedings to review such award.
AWARD OF COMMISSION APPROVED.
Bagley Judd & Ray, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., J. Robt. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen and Stuart P. Dobbs, of Ogden, for defendants.
Joseph Surrage, alleging that he was an employee of the Southern Pacific Company (operating a railroad), and sustained injuries in the course of his employment, applied to the Industrial Commission for an award of compensation to be paid him by the company in pursuance of our Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. Laws 1917, §§ 3061-3165). The company resisted the application on the grounds (1) that the applicant was not in its employ, but was an independent contractor, and (2) though it be held that the applicant was its employee, his injury resulted while he was employed in interstate commerce in which the company was engaged, and thus not subject to the act. On a hearing the commission found the issues in favor of the applicant, and made an award, which, by this proceeding, is sought to be reviewed by us on the company's application. On the record presented for review it makes the same contentions here; that is, that the record, without substantial dispute, shows the truth of its contentions, and that hence the award is unsupported by substantial evidence; and, if not, on the facts as found on the record is against law.
The company was a railroad common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. Surrage was engaged to cut noxious weeds with his own team and a mower on a section of the company's right of way in Weber county. There is evidence to show that he was orally employed by the company's foreman of the section to cut the weeds at a daily wage of $ 6.50, he to furnish, as he did, his own team and mower; that he received instructions from the foreman as to the particular place to work; that his work was extended as in the judgment of the foreman the weed cutting along the right of way was needed; that he was subject to discharge at the will or direction of the foreman; that the foreman or roadmaster of the company directed Surrage where to stard cutting, and when to change to other places of work; that a separate pay roll was kept for him, and, when he was injured, the foreman employed another to finish the work. The company also employed another, a section hand, to cut weeds with a scythe in corners and near objects which could not be cut with a mower, and who also was subject to the orders and directions of the foreman and not of Surrage.
The claim made that Surrage was an independent contractor rests chiefly on evidence that he was not paid until the work was completed, at which time he was paid in a lump sum by check from the office of the auditor of the company, furnished his own team and mower, was not examined by the railroad medical department, did not get pay when he did not work, his term of employment indefinite, and that no one told him how to operate his team and mower; the foreman testifying he thought Surrage could do that without direction. On the record we have no difficulty in holding that there is ample evidence to justify the finding that Surrage was an employee of the company, and not an independent contractor.
The second proposition, which is the company's chief contention, is not so easily disposed of. In such respect, the claim is made that cutting weeds on the company's right of way was directly related to interstate commerce, in which the company was engaged, or so closely connected therewith as to be a part of it, analogous to making repairs of a track or roadbed, bridges, culverts, and other instrumentalities used by a carrier in carrying on interstate commerce.
With respect to the conditions and the manner of the injury, the commission, among other things, found:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steward v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... commerce or so closely connected with it as to be a part of ... interstate commerce, then he is subject to the act ... Conway v. Southern Pacific Company , 67 Utah ... 464, 248 P. 115, 49 A. L. R. 1316; Peters v ... Industrial Commission , 74 Utah 140, 277 P. 408. In ... applying ... R ... Co. , 126 Minn. 172, 148 N.W. 58; Pierson v ... New York, S. & W. R. Co. , 83 N.J.L. 661, 85 A. 233; ... Conway v. Southern Pac. Co. , 67 Utah 464, ... 248 P. 115, 49 A. L. R. 1316 ... In the ... following cases cited by plaintiffs the article with which ... the ... ...
-
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... v. Ind. Comm. , 60 Utah 95, 206 ... P. 1103; Utah Rapid Transit Co. v. Ind ... Comm. , 59 Utah 232, 204 P. 87; Conway v ... So. Pac. R. Co. , 67 Utah 464, 248 P. 115, 49 A.L.R ... 1316; Southern Pac. Co. v. Ind. Comm. , 71 ... Utah 248, 264 P. 965. The rule that the nature ... ...
-
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... , 60 Utah 95, 206 P ... 1103; Utah Rapid Transit Co. v. Industrial ... Comm. , 59 Utah 232, 204 P. 87; Conway v ... Southern Pac. Co. , 67 Utah 464, 248 P. 115, 49 ... A.L.R. 1316; Southern Pac. Co. v. Industrial ... Comm. , 71 Utah 248, 264 P. 965. The rule that the ... ...