Court Opinion

ID: 9844749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:08:19.22142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.613517
License: Public Domain

McQUADE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority that the sacked commercial pota*269toes were finished farm products at the time of Goodson’s injury. In determining whether an employment is an “agricultural pursuit,” this court has consistently adhered to the view that the term includes every process and step taken and necessary to the completion of a finished farm product.1 It is apparent from the majority’s description of Hult’s commercial potato operation that sacking the oversize potatoes and loading them for shipment were integral aspects of the enterprise. These commercial potatoes v/ere not finished farm products, within the scope of Hult’s operations, until they were sacked and loaded for shipment to market in railroad car quantities.2 Therefore Goodson was employed in an agricultural pursuit at the time of his injury and was not covered by workmen’s compensation.
The actual loading of the potatoes was a part of an agricultural pursuit, at the very least Hult’s potato operation was an agricultural pursuit until the oversize potatoes were sacked and loaded for shipment.3 The task of loading the sacked potatoes for shipment was thus- clearly incidental to Hult’s commercial potato operation considered as an agricultural pursuit.4 Previous decisions of this Court hold that a general employee engaged in an exempt business is not covered by workmen’s compensation.5 Thus Goodson is not covered because he was an employee principally engaged in an agricultural pursuit, an exempt business, because at the time of the accident he was performing a task incidental to the exempt employment.
The order of the Industrial Commission should be affirmed.

. Backsen v. Blauser, 95 Idaho 811, 520 P.2d 858 (1974) ; Manning v. Win Her Stables, Inc., 91 Idaho 549, 428 P.2d 55 (1967) ; Reedy v. Trummell, 90 Idaho 318, 410 P.2d 654 (1966) ; Hubble v. Perrault, 78 Idaho 448, 304 P.2d 1092 (1956) ; Mulanix v. Falen, 64 Idaho 293, 130 P.2d 866 (1942) ; Mundell v. Swedlund, 59 Idaho 29, 80 P.2d 13 (1938) ; Cook v. Massey, 38 Idaho 264, 220 P. 1088 (1923).

. Compare Backsen v. Blauser, supra note 1, 95 Idaho at 813, 520 P.2d at 860, and Mundell v. Swedlund, supra note 1, 59 Idaho at 34, 80 P.2d at 15, with Batt v. Unemployment C. Div., 63 Idaho 572, 576, 123 P.2d 1004, 1005 (1942).

. See Mulanix v. Falen, supra note 1.

. Reedy v. Trummell, supra note 1, 90 Idaho at 321, 410 P.2d at 656.

. Hubble v. Perrault, supra note 1, 78 Idaho at 453, 304 P.2d at 1094; Bartlett v. Darrah, 76 Idaho 460, 462-63, 285 P.2d 138, 139 (1955) ; cf. Dorrell v. Norida Land & Timber Co., 53 Idaho 793, 800, 27 P.2d 960, 962 (1933).