Court Opinion

ID: 9795955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:43:27.189882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:18.433665
License: Public Domain

Justice EISMANN,
Specially Concurring.
I fully concur in the majority opinion, but write only to address Shriner’s claim that Rausch was his statutory employer. Idaho Code § 72-102(12) defines who is a “statutory employer.” Under that definition, an employer “includes the owner or lessee of premises, or other person who is virtually the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on, but who, by reason of there being an independent contractor or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of the workers there employed.” In support of his contention that Rausch was his statutory employer, Shriner emphasizes language from our opinion in Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Products, Inc., 107 Idaho 389, 393, 690 P.2d 324, 328 (1984), wherein we stated, “The definition [of statutory employer] includes the direct employer/subcontractor, a contractor over the subcontractor, and a qualifying proprietor or operator of a business over the contractor.” Shriner omits the immediately following passage from the opinion, which explains why Rausch does not qualify as Shriner’s statutory employer. “This does not mean that the qualifying proprietor or operator is the statutory employer of the contractor and subcontractor; it does mean that the qualifying proprietor or operator is the ‘employer’ of the contractor’s and subcontractor’s employees, and the contractor is also an ‘employer’ of the subcontractor’s employees.” Id. (emphasis in original). A person must first be an employee before he or she can have a statutory employer. Because Shriner is not an employee of a direct employer, Rausch cannot be his statutory employer.