New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1918-07-10
DECISION AFFECTS
ALL THRESHERMEN
THEIR EMPLOYEES CONSIDERED
FARM LABORERS AND NOT
OPERATORS
THIS RELEASES THRESHERMEN
FROM COMPENSATION ACT
LIABILITY

A decision of the supreme court OF
this state, handed down June 18th
has created considerable interest among
the threshermen of the state in as much
as it means the saving to them OF thou
sands of dollars 1t is of particular
interest also to people residing in or near
Madelia as it was there that the case in
question arose. According to the Ma
della News the facts were as follows:
Sued Under Compensation Act
"John Bykle, the plaintiff was en-
ploved bv Joseph Nero, as separator
tender during the fall of 1914, and
while so employed, accidentally in
iured himself while attempting to re-
pair the threshing machine, before
Starting to work one morning. He
sought to recover compensation for his
injuries, under tho Workmen's Com
pcnsation Act, passed in 1913.
Threshing Is Farm Labor
"TLo case was in court several times,
first while Judge OMnn was sitting
for Judge COnst och. At that time de-
PENDANTS dcmurred, but Judge Quinn
overruled tie demurrer, holding there
by that tnresIling was farm labor.
Thereafter tie c2sp was tried before
Judrc ConGtocG at ST. James, and the
verdict was given to the defendants
o.3 the grounds th2t the accident did
not arise out of and in the course OF
plaintiffs employment. since plaintiff
Wars injured before daylight in the
HoruiN~.
Plaintiff Cannot Recover
THE case was then brought to the
supreme court on a writ of certiorary,
and after reviewing all proceedings
that court sustained the decision of
the District Court, holding that thresh-
ing was farm labor, and as such plain
tiff could not recover.
Only Two Similar Cases
''The case is of special interest to
the threshermen of the state because
it was generally believed that they
were independent contractors and were
subject to the liabilities imposed under
the COMPENSATION Act There was no
precedent in this state to 60 by, and in
fact there are only two similar cases
in the Whole country, one arising in New
York, holding that threshing beans is
not farm labor, and the other arising
in Iowa, holding that Smelling corn
is larm labor. Since Minnesota courts
generally give credence to New York
DECISIONS insurance companies, insur-
ing against liabilities in this state, have
considered themselves liable, in cases
like this, and consequently have been
paUipU cOrnDanSatlOn
1.-TWO days after the decision was
handed down, Atty. Eide, who was
acting in the Madelia case, received a
letter from one of the largest insur-
ance companies, stating that on the
strength of this decision, they had de-
MED liability, in similar case.
Threshers Will Save Money
"The real significance of this decis-
ion is that threshermen will no long
er be compelled to protect themselves
with insurance against liability, and
since there are some 5000 to 1000
threshermen in the state, and since
the cost of this kind of insurance is
from $75 to 500, it is easily seen that
the saving to them runs high into the
thousands of dollars and approaches
the half million mark. This insur-
ance expense has been a great hard
ship on the threshers, and has been
mentioned in their conventions from
time to time. 1t has been suggested
that they go before the legislature,
asking for special legislation, allow
4 ing them to form their own mutual
insurance company, but now, the broad
and sweeping effect Of this decision
makes all this unnecessary, and they
stand in the same position as the far
mer, and no longer come under the
workings of the Workmen's Compen-
sation Act, and are no longer liable
for injuries received by workmen, from
accidents, over which the employer has
40 oo,atrol -