Title: Shuck v. Hendershot
Citation: 185 Kan. 673, 347 P.2d 362
Docket Number: 41,521
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1959

185 Kan. 673 (1959)
347 P.2d 362
REX SHUCK, Appellee,
v.
DALE HENDERSHOT, JOSEPH SINGLETON and DONALD SMITH, Appellants.
No. 41,521

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 12, 1959.
L.M. Ascough, of Topeka, argued the cause, and C.K. Sayler and John A. Bausch, both of Topeka, and Maurice A. Wildgen, Glee S. Smith and Donald L. Burnett, all of Larned, were with him on the brief for the appellants, Dale Hendershot and Joseph Singleton.
Jerry M. Ward, of Great Bend, argued the cause, and Tudor W. Hampton and Herbert Rohleder, both of Great Bend, were with him on the brief for the appellant, Donald Smith.
Morgan Wright, of Larned, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This is a common-law action for damages for personal injury based on alleged negligence of defendants.
The joint demurrer of defendants Hendershot and Singleton, and the separate demurrer of defendant Smith, to the amended petition (hereafter referred to as petition), were overruled. The appeal is from those rulings.
The basic question involved is whether the petition shows on its face that plaintiff's recovery is confined to the provisions of the workmen's compensation act.
Despite our reluctance to encumber an opinion with lengthy quotation of pleadings, it is felt that in order fully to present the various questions and to show the basis of our decision it will be necessary to do so in this case. Material portions of the petition are therefore set out in full:
Paragraphs 26 and 27 relate to the injuries and damage suffered by plaintiff and are followed by the prayer for recovery against all defendants in the amount of $10,728.80.
Defendants Hendershot and Singleton filed a joint demurrer, and defendant Smith a separate demurrer, to the petition. They were identical  the fifth ground thereof being that the petition
Both demurrers were overruled and all three defendants have appealed.
We first take up and discuss the question presented as it relates to defendants Hendershot and Singleton.
Specifically, they contend that under the allegations of the petition (1) they were engaged in the building trade and therefore compulsorily under the compensation act; (2) they were the special employers of plaintiff, and (3) therefore plaintiff's exclusive remedy as to them was to proceed under the compensation act.
*678 G.S. 1957 Supp. 44-507 specifically provides that "building work" is under the compensation act, and G.S. 1949, 44-508, defines "building work" as being any work in the erection, construction, extension, decoration, alteration, repair or demolition of any building or structural appurtenances.
While the allegations of the petition leave no doubt of the fact, it nevertheless is unnecessary to refer to them on the first two mentioned contentions, for in his brief plaintiff concedes that (1) Hendershot and Singleton were engaged in a trade covered by the act; (2) at the time and place in question they were his special employers, and (3) in performing work incidental to his general agricultural employment he also was concurrently performing work constituting his special employers' trade.
In view of the allegations of the petition, the mentioned sections of the statute, and concessions by plaintiff, it is difficult to follow his contention that as to Hendershot and Singleton the provisions of the compensation act did not provide his exclusive remedy.
Insofar as claimed liability on the part of Hendershot and Singleton is concerned, the case of Giltner v. Stephens, 163 Kan. 37, 180 P.2d 288, relied on by plaintiff, is readily distinguishable from the case before us. In that case the defendant, the owner and operator of a large dairy and stock farm, hired the plaintiff as a carpenter to work on the construction of a dairy barn on the farm. While so engaged the plaintiff was injured and brought a damage action against defendant. Among other things, it was alleged that the operation of a derrick and gin pole (by which plaintiff was injured) was within the control of the defendant. The defendant, a farmer, was exempt from the provisions of the compensation act (G.S. 1935, 44-505  see similar provision in G.S. 1957 Supp. 44-505), but the question of the applicability of the act was injected because of the fact the defendant farmer was engaged in "building" a barn on his farm. It was held that under the allegations of the petition it was clear that the regular trade or business of defendant was the operation of a dairy and stock farm, and that the construction of the barn was merely incidental to his ordinary and regular agricultural pursuits  therefore it could not be said that he was under the compensation act.
It is clear that insofar as defendants Hendershot and Singleton are concerned plaintiff has pleaded himself under the compensation act. It is conceded they were covered by the act and that he was their special employee. It is pleaded that plaintiff was under their *679 exclusive control and supervision in the performance of the work, and it also is clear that it was their work, as independent contractors, that was being done. For analogies to be drawn reference is made to Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., 147 Kan. 719, 78 P.2d 868; Bell v. Hall Lithographing Co., 154 Kan. 660, 666, 121 P.2d 281; Bright v. Bragg, 175 Kan. 404, 264 P.2d 494, and Judd v. City of Emporia, 183 Kan. 689, 331 P.2d 316. As was held in the Bright case, consistency of decisions involving interpretation of the compensation act cannot be maintained by construing the act liberally in favor of compensation where the workman seeks compensation, and strictly against compensation when he seeks damages. On this point see also Hoffman v. Cudahy Packing Co., 161 Kan. 345, 349, 350, 167 P.2d 613. With respect to these two defendants, plaintiff's remedy was exclusively under the compensation act, and therefore their demurrer to the petition was erroneously overruled.
This brings us, then, to the question whether, under the facts alleged in the petition, a cause of action for damages is stated against defendant Smith  that being one of the grounds of his demurrer. Concededly, being engaged in farming, he was not operating under the compensation act (G.S. 1957 Supp. 44-505), and under the rule of Giltner v. Stephens, above, the mere fact that a barn was being constructed on his farm did not bring him within the act.
The proposition, therefore, narrows down to the question whether the petition states a cause of action against him based either on specific acts of negligence  or under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as appears to be plaintiff's theory in paragraph 24 and 25 of the petition, quoted above.
A short answer to any contention concerning the theory of res ipsa loquitur is that the allegations of the petition negative that defendant Smith was in control of the instrumentality (the scaffold) either at the time it was allegedly negligently constructed or at the time the accidental injury occurred. Paragraph 23 of the petition affirmatively states that at all times Hendershot and Singleton were in sole control and possession and maintained the entire and exclusive supervision over the scaffold, and that the selection of materials therefor and the design, planning, construction, erection, inspection and testing thereof, and especially at the times of the commission of an act or acts of negligence or omission, were exclusively and solely their acts.
*680 In Nichols v. Nold, 174 Kan. 613, 258 P.2d 317, 38 A.L.R.2d 887, in discussing the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it was said:
See also Lamb v. Hartford Accident &amp; Indemnity Co., 180 Kan. 157, 162 and 163, 300 P.2d 387.
It is clear the petition does not state a cause of action against defendant Smith under the theory of res ipsa loquitur  in fact, the allegations of the petition affirmatively negative application of the doctrine.
Does the petition allege specific acts of negligence on his part? We think not.
The accident in question resulted from the collapse of the scaffold upon which plaintiff and Hendershot were standing, apparently caused by a split piece of board referred to as a "scab" (see paragraph 17 of the petition). It alleges (paragraph 16) that Hendershot performed most of the work in the construction and erection and the attachment of the scaffold to the shed; that he, Hendershot, selected all lumber used in its construction, planned and designed its construction, supervised the work of its construction and every detail thereof, selected and furnished all of the materials therefor, and furnished the scaffold in a finished state to plaintiff for his, plaintiff's, use in performing work assigned to him by Hendershot. The allegations of paragraph 23, in which Hendershot and Singleton are alleged to have had the entire and exclusive supervision over the scaffold and its construction, have already been noted and will not be repeated. It is significant to note that nowhere is defendant Smith charged with any specific act of negligence in connection with the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, namely, the collapse of the scaffold. From the allegations, if anyone was negligent it was Hendershot, and not Smith.
Careful consideration has been given to all contentions relating to the alleged liability on the part of Smith, but our conclusion is that the petition fails to state a cause of action against him. It follows that his separate demurrer was likewise erroneously overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed with directions to sustain each of the two demurrers to the petition.
WERTZ and ROBB, JJ., dissent from paragraph 2(c) of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of the opinion.