State ex rel. Bykle v. Dist. Court of Watonwan Cnty.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20931.,20931.
• Citation: 140 Minn. 398,168 N.W. 130
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BYKLE v. DISTRICT COURT OF WATONWAN COUNTY et al.

140 Minn. 398

168 N.W. 130

STATE ex rel. BYKLE

v.DISTRICT COURT OF WATONWAN COUNTY et al.

No. 20931.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 28, 1918.

Original writ of certiorari in Supreme Court by the State, on relation of John Bykle, to review a judgment of the district court of Watonwan County and others, denying relator's claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Judgment affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

An employé of one who owns a steam thresher and threshes grain for farmers under contract, is, while employed about the threshing machine in the course of thereshing grain upon a farm, a ‘farm laborer,’ and is excepted from the operation of the Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8195-8230). Herbert T. Park, of Minneapolis, for relator.

C. J. Eide, of Madelia, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

Defendant Joseph Mero owned a steam thresher. Defendant Wolford Mero, his brother, operated it. They went about the country threshing grain for farmers as the owners and operators of steam threshers usually do. There were seven men in the crew. Plaintiff was employed as ‘separator man.’ Wolford was not always on the work and during his absence plaintiff was in charge. It was his duty to keep the machine running, to save the grain and ‘to repair anything that went wrong with the machine that he could.’ Repairs were made ‘at odd hours,’ at noon hours, and on rainy days, when this could be done, ‘so as not to lay up the machine and stop the work during working hours.’ ‘A good many times those needed repairs were made * * * before or after starting the machine in the morning or evening.’ Plaintiff was never expressly authorized to do this repair work before starting time in the morning. One afternoon, while threshing for a farmer, the straw blower became out of order. Either Wolford or plaintiff was able to fix it with the use of a few bolts. Wolford tells what passed between them as follows: ‘Mr. Bykle came to me and said that he had to have some bolts to fix the blower with and I says all right we will go and see what sized bolts it will take to fix it with and so we went to the side of the machine and looked at the blower, and I says to him, ‘I have to go to town any way to get some meat to take home, and I will get the bolts and when I come in the morning I will fix the blower.’' Work usually started in the morning at 6 o'clock or earlier. Wolford did get the bolts and returned at 6:10 in the morning. In the meantime plaintiff had procured the bolts from the farmer and with the help of the farmer's hired man made the repair before six o'clock in the morning. As he was about to leave the work he made a misstep and fell from the deck of the separator and was injured. He asks compensation under the Compensation Act. The court denied him relief.

We entertain no doubt that under the facts as testified to by defendant, plaintiff was injured by an accident ‘arising out of and in the course of his employment’ as those words are used in the first section of the Compensation Act. G. S. 1913, § 8195. The doubtful question arises over the construction of the eighth section, G. S. 1913, § 8202, which provides that the act shall not apply to ‘farm laborers.’

In White v. Loades, 178 App. Div. 236,164 N. Y. Supp. 1023, it was held that a man who is traveling through the country with a machine, stopping from place to place...