Court Opinion

ID: 9666081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:04:19.242446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.432072
License: Public Domain

Pee Curiam.
On certiorari to the Workers’ Compensation Board relator, the widow of Alexander T. Firkus, challenges the finding of the commission that her husband was not at the time of his death acting as an employee of James J. Murphy. We affirm.
Murphy, an independent timber logger who was engaged in a rush logging project, became stalled in the woods on March 28,1972, when his automobile malfunctioned. He walked several miles from the woods to a forest ranger station where his wife and decedent Firkus found him. Firkus gave him a ride home. Early the next morning, Firkus, Murphy’s brother-in-law, drove Murphy back into the woods and remained with Murphy there. Firkus had been unemployed since October 1971, recovering from *86a back injury and a subsequent injury that disabled his right hand.
When they arrived in the woods, Murphy proceeded to drive his tractor and skidded the logs out of the woods. Firkus marked these logs according to size, which Murphy otherwise would have done himself for later inspection and inventory. Murphy climbed off the tractor at one point, whereupon Firkus climbed onto it. Murphy told him to get off the tractor, remonstrating that Firkus did not know how to handle it and would be unable to do so with his injured hand. Firkus did not climb down from the tractor, saying that he drove the same kind of tractor on his farm.
Murphy, thinking that his brother-in-law was so strongminded and stubborn that it would be fruitless to argue with him, thereupon undertook to explain to Firkus how to operate the winch. Murphy, however, hooked and unhooked the logs being skidded from the woods, a part of the task he had otherwise done himself as part of the tractor operation. On the second haul Murphy told Firkus he was driving with too much cable out; and on the third or fourth haul the tractor overturned and Firkus was fatally injured.
Minn. St. 176.011, subd. 9, defines an employee as “any person who performs service for another for hire * * The issue is whether Firkus was performing a service for hire or whether, as the commission found, he was a volunteer. This is a question of fact. Our function on review is to determine whether the commission’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence. Dobosenski v. Carlton County, 280 Minn. 58, 60, 157 N. W. 2d 847, 848 (1968).
The evidence upon which claimant relied is: That Firkus, performed some work; that some weeks prior to the fatal accident Murphy advised Firkus that when he was able to work Murphy would hire him; that Murphy had attempted to hire someone to help him skid logs on this project but had been unsuccessful; *87and that Firkus had told a deputy sheriff that he was “going into the woods” with Murphy, an expression commonly used to refer to logging work. Claimant additionally argued that she was entitled to a presumption that one injured while in another’s service is an employee.
There was, however, no direct evidence that Murphy intended to employ Firkus on that day or that he had requested more than a ride back into the woods. While Murphy may have obtained some benefit from Firkus’ log marking, there is no clear evidence that Firkus expected payment for his effort. Murphy testified that he did not intend Firkus to be his employee and that he did not intend to compensate him for his activity. The. commission, of course, could credit that testimony. It is clear that Murphy did not request Firkus to mount the tractor but that Firkus did so on his own initiative. The fact that Murphy did not force Firkus off the tractor is not determinative; the fact that Murphy asked Firkus to get off the .tractor after he had mounted it supports Murphy’s testimony that he did not intend Firkus to be his employee and that he did not intend to compensate Firkus for his activities.
There is, as claimant argues, a presumption that one injured while in another’s service is an employee, a presumption that is useful in distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. That, however, is not this case, for the issue is whether Firkus was in Murphy’s service in any capacity. Presumptions cease to operate, in any event, as soon as evidence which can support a contrary finding is admitted. See, Steinhaus v. Adamson, 294 Minn. 387, 201 N. W. 2d 264 (1972).
The burden of proving status as an employee rests upon the claimant. Holm v. H & S Asphalt Co. 283 Minn. 330, 167 N. W. 2d 743 (1969). Whether or not we might have decided the case differently were we in the position of the commission, the dis-positive issue is whether the evidence reasonably supports the commission’s factual finding that decedent was a volunteer and *88had no implied contract of employment. We hold that the commission’s finding is not without requisite evidentiary support.
Affirmed.