Court Opinion

ID: 9666082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:04:19.246694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.433053
License: Public Domain

Scott, Justice
(dissenting).
The record seems convincing that the decedent was an employee. Where the conclusions of the commission are manifestly contrary to the evidence, they cannot stand. Nierengarten v. State Department of Highways, 282 Minn. 231, 163 N. W. 2d 862 (1969).
Murphy attempted to hire Firkus to assist him in December or January. Before the incident involved here, Firkus had told the local deputy sheriff that he was “going into the woods” with Murphy — a phrase commonly understood as meaning that he was going logging. Murphy did not merely borrow Firkus’ car. Firkus got up before 6 a. m. and drove him 30 miles to the work-site for this rush job. While Murphy worked, Firkus began to mark log sizes on the timber — an activity which benefited Murphy. Although Murphy protested when Firkus climbed on the tractor because Murphy feared the latter would be unable to operate it with his injured hand, Murphy acquiesced and assisted Firkus by explaining to him how to operate the winch. Firkus’ service in operating the tractor enabled a division of labor whereby Murphy was able to hitch and unhitch the logs on the ground while Firkus remained on the tractor. In marking the logs and operating the tractor, Firkus was providing aid which Murphy previously had offered to pay another party to provide. According to a statement given by one witness, Murphy’s first explanation to the witness after the accident was, “a tractor tipped on my helper.” As the dissenting member of the three-man Workers’ Compensation Board stated:
“I do not believe the alleged employer’s testimony in this matter. I do not believe that it was the intention of Mr. Firkus and Mr. Murphy that Mr. Firkus do the work in the woods until at least noon under the circumstances of this case without an *89agreed amount of payment. If Mr. Firkus had been merely interested in getting the car of Mr. Murphy in operation, he would have done that and would not have intended to spend the other hours in the woods.”
It is unlikely that a man who had been unemployed for several months would get up before 6 a. m., drive 30 miles into the woods and remain at a worksite assisting another on a rush work project, and not expect compensation. Murphy’s assistance to Firkus in using the winch and the resulting division of labor support a contrary finding.
I would reverse.
Yetka, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Scott.