State ex rel. Virginia & Rainy Lake Company v. District Court of St. Louis County
| Decision Date | 18 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 19,144 - (300) |
| Citation | 150 N.W. 211,128 Minn. 43 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. VIRGINIA & RAINY LAKE COMPANY v. DISTRICT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the relation of Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. this court issued its writ of certiorari directed to the district court for St Louis county and to Honorable Bert Fesler, one of the judges thereof, commanding them to return to this court a transcript of all the records of proceedings in said court in an action wherein Stanley Bashko was plaintiff-employee and the Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. a corporation, was defendant-employer. Affirmed.
Injury to servant -- liability of master.
1. The test for determining whether one person is the employee of another, within the rule making the employer responsible for injuries resulting from the negligence of his employee, is whether such person possessed the power to control the other in respect to the transaction out of which the injury arose.
Respondeat superior -- applicability of rule.
2. The court cannot determine, as a question of law, that the rule of respondeat superior does not apply, unless the evidence shows conclusively that the alleged employer possessed no such power of control.
Findings sustained by evidence.
3. Under the above tests the evidence was ample to sustain the finding of the trial court.
Workmen's Compensation Act -- construction.
4. The Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial in its nature and must be given a liberal construction to accomplish the purpose intended. The provisions defining when the relation of employer and employee exists bring within the act all cases in which, under the above rule, such relation is found to exist.
Abbott MacPherran, Lewis & Gilbert, for relator.
Charles E. Adams, for respondent.
The respondent, Bashko, while engaged in getting out ties, poles and posts for the relator, the Virginia & Rainy Lake Co., received an injury which resulted in the loss of the sight of one eye. He made application to the district court of St. Louis county for compensation therefor under the so-called Workmen's Compensation Act. The court sustained his claim, and adjudged that the company should pay the compensation specified in the act in accordance with the provisions thereof. The company brought the matter before this court by certiorari, and contends that Bashko was not an employee but an independent contractor. The only question for decision is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the district court that Bashko, at the time of the accident, was an employee of the company within the meaning of the compensation act.
The company owned large tracts of timber land in the northern part of the state, and were engaged in cutting, preparing and removing the merchantable timber therefrom. They maintained camps at convenient points in which to board and lodge the men engaged in the work. In addition to the men employed at monthly wages, there were a large number engaged in cutting and preparing timber at a specified price per piece and known as "piece-makers." Bashko was a "piece-maker." He boarded at the camp, but paid an agreed price per week for his board. He also paid to the company one dollar per month as a hospital fee, which entitled him to care and treatment in a hospital in case of sickness or injury. The amount due for board and hospital fee was deducted by the company from his earnings. He procured the tools used in his work from the company, and they were charged to him with the understanding that he could either pay for the use of them or purchase them outright. He subsequently concluded to purchase them, and by his direction the price was deducted from his earnings. The company assigned him a specific tract of its land upon which to work, and marked out the boundary between this tract and the tracts allotted to others. He was required to cut the merchantable timber clean as he went, and to manufacture it into ties, poles and posts according to specifications furnished him by the company, and also to pile the brush ready for burning. He was to be paid at a specified rate per piece for all timber cut and prepared in accordance with the specifications. This rate varied according to the size character and grade of the different ties, poles and posts. The company had an inspector and a foreman, each of whom inspected the work once or twice a week to see that it was properly performed and that the requirements of the specifications were complied with. Under the agreement, Bashko could work as much or as little as he wished; could lay off whenever and as long as he chose; could work as many or as few hours per day as he saw fit; could proceed in his own way so far as his method of working was concerned; and could quit finally whenever he elected to do so. It does not appear that there was any fixed time for payment. Whenever requested the company counted the ties, poles and...
To continue reading
Request your trial