Court Opinion

ID: 9722905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:54:42.637864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:41.598511
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(on motion for rehearing). In the plaintiff Scholz’s brief in support of his motion for rehearing it is suggested that our former opinion herein has the effect of overruling Habrich v. Industrial Comm. (1929), 200 Wis. 248, 227 N. W. 877.
The Habrich Case involved the question of whether one Bent, whose widow applied for workmen’s compensation benefits as the result of his death, was at the time of his fatal injury an employee of the plaintiff Habrich or an independent contractor. It was contended that there was no competent evidence before the Industrial Commission by *41bwhich it could determine whether Bent was an employee, and in passing on such contention this court stated (p. 254) :
“Furthermore, we hold that where the facts disclosed show that one is injured while in the service of another, for the purposes of the compensation act it will be presumed that the person injured was an employee, and that the burden of proving otherwise rests upon the one seeking to defeat compensation.”
In the subsequent case of Huebner v. Industrial Comm. (1940), 234 Wis. 239, 290 N. W. 145, 126 A. L. R. 1113, Mr. Justice NelsoN, speaking for the court, declared (p.243):
“They [the defendants] further contend that where it appears that one is injured while performing services for another it will be presumed, for the purposes of the compensation act, that the person was an employee, and therefore the burden to prove otherwise rests upon him who seeks to defeat compensation. Habrich v. Industrial Comm., supra; McKesson-Fuller-Morrisson Co. v. Industrial Comm. 212 Wis. 507, 250 N. W. 396; Kolman v. Industrial Comm., supra. That presumption, however, is a rebuttable presumption, and ceases to have force or effect when evidence to the contrary is adduced." (Emphasis supplied.)
The principle so announced in the Huebner Case, that the presumption as to there being an employee-employer relationship is a rebuttable one which disappears upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary, has been approved by this court in J. Romberger Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1940), 234 Wis. 226, 229, 290 N. W. 639; Hume v. Industrial Comm. (1945), 248 Wis. 5, 8, 20 N. W. (2d) 573; and Green Valley Co-op. Dairy Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1947), 250 Wis. 502, 506, 27 N. W. (2d) 454.
The above-quoted extract from our opinion in the Huebner Case is consistent with the statement in our original opinion herein, wherein we declared that the burden of proving that *41cthe applicant was an employee at time of injury is upon the applicant, and that the issue as to whether he might have been an independent contractor, and not an employee, does not present an affirmative defense. However, the applicant has the benefit of the presumption, that if at the time of accident the applicant were rendering service for the alleged employer the relationship of employer and employee existed. This presumption makes it unnecessary for applicant to offer any testimony on the point in presenting his side of the case originally inasmuch as the presumption constitutes prima facie proof as to that issue.
However, we do disapprove of the statement made in the opinion in the Habrich Case that the effect of such presumption is to cast the burden of proving otherwise upon the employer or his insurance carrier. The burden of proof never shifts but the burden of proceeding with the presentation of evidence does shift to the other side where the party seeking relief has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption. As to this point, Mr. Justice Barnes, in his opinion in Murphy v. Estate of Skinner (1915), 160 Wis. 554, 152 N. W. 172, declared (p. 564):
“It is not accurate to say that the burden of proof has been shifted because a prima facie case has been made. Where the plaintiff has the burden of proof at the beginning of a trial it remains with him to the end.”
By the Court. — Motion for rehearing denied without costs.