Court Opinion

ID: 9660549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:15:44.122996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.408955
License: Public Domain

SICKEL, J.,
(dissenting). Respondent contends in his brief that he “was employed [by the town] under an implied contract” and argues the point at length. Respondent’s brief *415pages 2 to 12. The question is whether claimant was an employee of the town, not whether the town had legally authorized the removal of the municipal light and power lines.
Under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation law “employer” includes any municipal corporation. An “employee’ is “every person, including a minor, in the services of another under any contract of employment, express or implied * * SDC 64.0102, amended ch. 313, S.L. 1943.
The relationship of employer and employee between a municipal corporation and any other person may be created by an implied contract. Bergstresser v. City of Willow Lake, 63 S.D. 386, 259 N.W. 276; Gulbrandson v. Town of Midland, 72 S.D. 461, 36 N.W.2d 655.
Whenever services are rendered and voluntarily accepted a contract of hiring and an obligation to pay compensation therefor is implied in law. In this case the failure to record the decision of the town board bars any claim of express contract, but the evidence shows that the services were rendered to the town by claimant, and were voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally accepted by the governing body of the town.
In my opinion the claimant was an employee of the town under an implied contract at the time of his injury. He was injured in the course of his employment and is entitled to workmen’s compensation. Decisions of this court relating to contracts not within the scope of the workmen’s compensation law are inapplicable.