Court Opinion

ID: 9864914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:16:35.52606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:36.768746
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Otto Bock
dissenting.
I regret my inability to concur. So far as pertinent, section 288 (b), chapter 97, ’35 C.S.A., defines the term “employee” as “Every person in the service of any * * * firm * * * under any contract of hire, express or implied, * * The commission found that claimant was an employee of the company and awarded compensation.
Considering all of the evidence contained in the meager record, I am of the opinion that the commission could make a reasonable inference therefrom that the oral contract here involved was one of employment, contemplating only labor on the job and nothing else, and hence, that claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor.
I do not consider the case of Arnold v. Lawrence, 72 Colo. 528, 213 Pac. 129, as controlling. The issues in that case do not relate to employment as defined in section 288 (b), supra.
Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard concurs in this dissent.