Case Title: STATE EX REL ROMERO v DIST COURT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12524 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A STATE O F M O N T A N A ex r e 1 C L A Y T O N V. ROMERO, Petitioner, DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R T H E COUNTY O F C A S C A D E - T R U M A N G. BRADFORD, JUDGE THEREOF, and JIMMIE McBRIDE, Defendants. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Hoyt, Bottomly and Gabriel, Great F a l l s , Montana R. V . Bottomly argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Defendants : Cure and Borer, Great F a l l s , Montana Orin R. Cure argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: June 20, 1973 Decided : 1 3 1973 t4r. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an original proceeding brought on the relation of Clayton V . Romero seeking a writ of supervisory control directed t o the respondents. After an ex parte hearing on June 4, 1973, w e issued an order to show cause setting a hearing for June 20, 1973, to determine whether a writ of super- visory control or other appropriate writ should be issued. Petitioner's ground for seeking relief i s that the d i s t r i c t court made a mistake of law which, i f allowed to stand, would inflict a gross i n - justice upon petitioner. Petitioner alleges that he would be compelled t o proceed to t r i a l based upon his complaint, and the respondent Jimmie R. McBride would have available to him the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negl igence as contained i n respondent's answer. Petitioner fur- ther states that his remedy by appeal after final judgment i s wholly inade- quate and such a remedy would be tantamount t o a denial of justice. The district court action arose out of an accident which occurred on a dryland wheat farm in Liberty County, Montana on or about August 21, 1969. Petitioner, Clayton V. Romero, was employed by the respondent Jimmie R . McBride in a custom combining operation. That i s , McBride would contract with various farmers to combine some or a l l of their wheat. In this partic- ular case, the farmer involved had several combines of his own working and simply hired McBride to combine certain acreage and haul the grain t o an on-the-farm granary where i t was to be stored. Romero had been employed by McBride in the State of Oklahoma and had been working for McBride for over a month. His job a t the time was to haul grain in one of McBride's trucks to a granary where he would dump the grain into the hopper of a grain auger. The grain auger was powered by a tractor and elevated the grain out of the hopper into the granary. Romero was seriously injured when his l e f t hand was caught i n the unguarded grain auger. McBride did not carry Workmen's Compensation insurance either in the State of Oklahoma or the State of Montana. The issue presented to this Court i s whether or not an employee of a custom combiner is excluded from recovery as being an agricultural employee, under the Montana Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 92-202, R.C.M. 1947, states: "Defenses not excluded i n personal injury action asai nst employer i n nonhazardous occupation and certain other occupations. The provisions of sec- t i o n 92-201 shall not apply to actions to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by house- hold and domestic servants or those employed i n farming, dairying, agricultural , viticultural , and horticultural , stock or poultry raising, or engaged i n the operation and maintenance of steam rai 1 roads conducting interstate commerce, or persons whose employment is of a casual nature." Section 92-201, R.C.M. 1947, states: "Defenses excl uded i n personal i n jury action-- negl iqence of empl oyee--fel low servant--assump- t i o n of risk. In an action t o recover damages for personal injuries sustained by an employee i n the course of his employment, or for death resulting from personal injuries so sustained, i t shall not be a defense: " (1 ) That the employee was negligent, unless such negl igence was w i 11 ful ; "(2) That the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow employee; "(3) That the employee had assumed the risks inherent in, incident to, or arising out of his employment, or arising from the failure of the employer to provide and maintain a reasonably safe place to work, or reasonably safe tools or appliances." This Court finds that the legislature in 1915, a t the time of the passage of the Workmen's Compensation Act, intended to include i n the exclu- sion of section 92-202, R.C.M. 1947, the normal activities and operation of the farm or ranch by the owner and his employees as well as exchange of work and labor i n other casual farm related activities. W e believe that the legislature did not intend t o include custom combining. Custom combining i s a business requiring large sums t o be invested i n combines, trucks, trailers and allied machinery. T h i s custom combiner started his season i n early spring i n the south and proceeded north through the midwest and on to the s i t e of this accident. Nothing i n this work i s associated w i t h the custom combiner's own farm operation. W e hold that custom combining is a hazardous business operation and as such the employer i s required to carry Workmen's Compensation and in the absence of such coverage, the employer loses all common law defenses as provided by section 92-201 , R.C .M. 1947, hereinbefore quoted. The statute applying to inherently hazardous occupations i s section 1947 92-301, R.C.M./i.'which states: "Act applies to all inherently hazardous occupations as enumerated. This act is intended to apply to all inherently hazardous works and occupations within this state, and i t i s the intention to embrace all thereof in the four following sections, and the work and occu- pations enumerated in said sections are hereby declared to be hazardous, and any employer having workmen engaged in any of the hazardous works or occupations herein 1 i s ted s ha1 1 be considered as an employer engaged i n hazardous works and occupations as to a1 1 his employees." Sections 92-302, 92-303, 92-304, 92-305, and 92-306, R.C.M. 1947, enumerate many occupations which are specifically declared to be hazardous and conclude with the following: "If there be or arise any hazardous occupation or work other than hereinbefore enumerated, i t shall come under this act and i t s terms, conditions, and provisions as fully and completely as if hereinbefore enumerated." From these sections of the Revised Codes of Montana w e hold that custom combining does come within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Workmen's Compensation laws, as with other social legislation, are to be interpreted liberally in order to provide as wide a coverage as i s poss- ible to the workers of this State. Naturally, of course, this liberal interpretation must fall within the bounds set b y statutes of our legislature. Section 92-202, R.C.M. 1947, hereinbefore quoted, specifically excludes: " * * * personal injuries sustained by * * * those employed in farming, dairying, agricultural, viticul- tural, and horticultural, stock or poultry raising * * *It, In this particular action, w e have a custom combiner who indepently contracts to cut a farmer's wheat, and in the course of this operation one of his em- ployees i s injured. The custom combiner i s not employed in farming. H e i s harvesting a crop which he did not raise, nor own. The custom combiner was merely providing a service to the farmer who hired him. This i s the only issue to which this Court addresses itself, i.e., a custom combiner i s not excluded from the Workmen's Compensation laws on the ground that he i s engaged in agricultural employment. An extensive annotation on the appl ication of Workmen's Compen- sation Acts to employees engaged i n farming appears i n 107 A.L.R. 977. A m o n g the many cases therein discussed i s Nace v. Industrial Commission, 217 Wis. 267, 258 N.W. 781. In that case the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated: " * * * Decisions of other courts in compensation cases are ordinarily not helpful because of differences be- tween the language of the acts involved and our act. * * *" This observation is certainly applicable here b u t w e feel that the better reasoned authorities support our position. For example, one of the later cases i s that considered by the 4 0r.A. ;A8"3f? Oregon Supreme Court in Westfall v. Tilley,/476 P.2d 797, 801 (1970). That case involved a custom soil fumigating and weed spraying business and simul- taneously the defendant conducted a bulb farm operation. The claimant was injured while unloading fumigating drums from the bed of a truck. The Court, in denying that the work was excluded under their Workmen's Compensation Act stated: "In determining each case whether work done i s incidental to farming within the Act, the test i s the particular farming activity engaged in by that workman's o w n employer, not whether the work may be considered incidental to farming in general. * * *" In the case a t hand Romero was injured while in the employment of J i m i e McBride, the custom combiner. This injury was incurred independently from any farming operation. McBride was an independent contractor, and to deny the petitioner, Romero, re1 ief would appear t o be improper. For this reason, the Court grants petitioner relief and directs the district court to overrule the order denying the motion t o strike respondent's defenses of contributorv n e a l i a e n f i d as-tion of risk. 1