Court Opinion

ID: 9545658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:16:54.169482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:18.860348
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
The pertinent facts in this case are undisputed and the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the facts is a question of law.
The fact that the claimant was not required to haul any specified quantity of potatoes within any specified time or complete any particular amount of work negatives the idea that he was an independent contractor, and together with other undisputed testimony proves that the employer had an arrangement for services only. Further, the company maintained a supervision of the work, and the fact that the claimant was to be paid by the piece in proportion to the quantity of work performed does not make him an independent contractor.
The further fact that the claimant employed other persons to assist in the work is not controlling.
The price of four cents per sack was simply a standard for measuring the services performed.
Where a workman’s wages and earnings are measured on a basis of piece work and where there is no specified quantity of work to be done, the relationship is that of master and servant, and the employee is within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
For authorities sustaining this view, see : 58 Am.Jur., 675, para. 141; McKinstry v. Guy Coal Co., 116 Kan. 192, 225 P. 743, 38 A.L.R. 837; New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 80 Cal. App. 713, 252 P. 775; Shay v. Hill, 133 Kan. 157, 299 P. 263, Syl. 2; Vol. 1, Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, page 208, para. 66.
Much work is performed in logging, mining and other lines of industry in which the standard of payment is determined by the piece or quantity of work performed. Such piece work employment creates a relationship of master and servant and not independent contractor.
The case of Taylor v. Blackwell Lumber Co., 37 Idaho 707, 218 P. 356, is not in conflict with this view and is not an authority for denying compensation he're.
Under the undisputed facts, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to recovery, and the disallowance of his claim should be reversed.