Case Name: ALBERT FREEMAN v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1925-12-15
Citations: 116 Or. 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBERT FREEMAN v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Bean and Belt, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 448–451

Head Matter:
Argued December 10,
affirmed December 15, 1925.
ALBERT FREEMAN v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
(241 Pac. 385.)
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Mr. I. H. Van Winkle, Attorney General, with an oral argument by Mr. Miles H. McKey, Assistant Attorney General.

Opinion:
BROWN, J.
Under Or. L., Section 6617, subdivision (1), the operation of a wood-saw is defined as a hazardous occupation. Section 6618 reads:
"Farming and all work incidental thereto except the construction of dwelling houses, hop dryers, fruit dryers, stock and hay barns, are nonhazardous occupations, and are subject to the provisions of this act only through compliance with Section 6636."
"Wood-sawing" and "wood-cutting" may be incidental to farming: Or. L., Section 6619.
Under the facts in the cause at issue, the claimant, in helping to operate the wood-saw, was not engaged in an employment .incidental to the farming operations of Smith: Farrin v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 104 Or. 452, 469 (205 Pac. 984); Helmuth et al. v. Industrial Acc. Com. et al., 59 Cal. App. 160 (210 Pac. 428, 429); Hanna v. Warren, 77 Ind. App. 1 (133 N. E. 9); Marietta v. Quayle, 79 Ind. App. 9 (137 N. E. 61).
The decisions cited by appellants are not contrary to the claimant's contention. In the case of Boschetti v. L. Lecas and Fombaron, 3 Dec. Ind. Acc. Com. 39, the appellant was a general farm-hand who was injured by a wedge striking him in the eye while cutting firewood in the course of his employment. In Mullen v. Little, 186 App. Div. 169 (173 N. Y. Supp. 578) the plaintiff was employed as a farm laborer and in tbe performance of bis duties was injured while filling an ice-house with ice to be used on tbe farm. Tbe cases cited by appellants are clearly distinguishable from tbe case at bar, because tbe employees therein were farm laborers engaged in performing their duties as such. In tbe case at issue, tbe employees of McCarthy were not engaged in farming or in labor incidental thereto. When they were sawing wood for John Jones, an attorney at law, and for John Brown, a physician, they were under the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The fact that they moved their operations down to farmer Smith does not change the hazardous nature of their employment.
We have considered the history of the act and the amendments thereto called to our attention by the Assistant Attorney General.
This case is affirmed. Affirmed.
McBride, C. J., and Bean and Belt, JJ., concur.