Court Opinion

ID: 9848446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:19:51.743175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:18.246659
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
MARUMOTO, J.
I dissent. The cases of Ikoma v. Oahu Sugar Co., 23 Haw. 291 (1916); Uyeno v. Chun Kim Sut, 31 Haw. 102 (1929); Wright Minors v. City & County, 41 Haw. 603 (1957), cited in the opinion of the court, do not support the proposition that defendants Yamauchi and Ansai were not the operators of the business carried on at Waikiki Circle Hotel premises on February 21,1963, the date of plaintiff’s injury, within the meaning of R.L.H. 1955, § 97-1, as it existed on that date. The holding in each of those cases was that the owner or lessee of the premises where the injury occurred was a statutory employer of an injured employee of a subcontractor because such owner or lessee was the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on. The question as to whether a general contractor doing construction work for the owner of the premises where the work was being done was the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on was not an issue in any of those cases. That question had not been presented squarely to this court prior to the instant case.
*297In Tomondong v. Ikezaki, 32 Haw. 373 (1932), where Ikezaki, a general contractor had a contract for the construction of a house for the owner of the land and the contract included the preparation of the ground for that purpose, this court stated, at page 377: “It is manifest that the only business that was being carried on upon the premises at the time of claimant’s injuries was that of preparing a piece of unoccupied ground for the erection of a house thereon. It is also manifest that the sole owner and operator of this business was Ikezaki.” This statement was dictum because the ultimate holding in the case was that the claimant was not an employee of the subcontractor but a partner of the subcontractor and as such was not entitled to compensation. However, I think it represents a correct interpretation of the statutory language. The definition of employer contained in § 97-1, as it existed at the time of plaintiff’s injury, embraced not only the owner or lessee of the premises who was the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on, but also “other person who is virtually the proprietor, or operator of the business there carried on.” Two other jurisdictions use identical language, as § 97-1 mentioned here, in defining statutory employer. They are Idaho and Vermont. In both of these jurisdictions a general contractor doing construction work for the owner of the land on which the work is being done is held to be a statutory employer of an employee of a subcontractor. Gifford v. Nottingham, 68 Idaho 330, 193 P.2d 831 (1948); Packett v. Moretown Creamery Co., 91 Vt. 97, 99 Atl. 638 (1917).