Court Opinion

ID: 9865125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:24:31.594378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:28.807180
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.

The commission claims that Lackey’s business, while he was pulling down the old building and erecting a filling station, was building. We do not think so. It is not a fair construction of the words “usual course of trade or business” to make them applicable to a single act of building.
The commission also thinks we have overlooked section 50 of the workmen’s compensation act, C. L. § 4424, which reads as follows: “Every person * * * that owns any real property or improvements thereon and that contracts out any work done on and to said property to any contractor, sub-contractor, person or persons, who shall hire or use four or more employes or workmen *117(including himself if working thereon) in the doing of such work, shall be deemed to be an employer under the terms of this act, * * * and such employer shall be liable as provided in this act to pay compensation for injury or death resulting therefrom * * * .”
This section was not called to our attention until the motion for rehearing.
We do not think that it affects Mr. Lackey’s liability in any way. It has not been questioned that he was an employer and liable as provided in the act; but it is provided in the act, as we have shown, that an employer shall not be liable to a casual employe unless such employe is in the usual course of the employer’s trade or business..
Behearing denied.