Court Opinion

ID: 9701141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:07:13.489858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:18.162046
License: Public Domain

*5GLASSMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
As the court recognizes, the central issue is whether young Girard was McNeal’s “employee” as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Act. If Girard were not an employee, then the Act’s exclusivity provisions never applied to him and his estate is free to pursue a negligence action against McNeal. I contend that Christopher Girard was never McNeal’s employee, and accordingly, I dissent.
The court states that the Workers’ Compensation Act “defines ‘employee’ in the broadest possible terms, to encompass a minor whether legally or illegally employed.” One need only read the plain language of the Act to grasp the illogic of this assertion. The Act defines employee as “every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written_” 39 M.R.S.A. § 2(5)(A) (Supp.1989) (emphasis added). Employing unambiguous language, the Legislature has chosen a definition of employee that is based upon contract principles. A worker’s status as an employee, and hence his coverage under the Act, must arise from a contract for hire. If no contract exists, the worker cannot be an “employee” for purposes of the Act. In the present case, the parties did not form a contract for hire.
It is well established that an agreement whose formation or performance violates a constitutional statute is void. Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 138, 42 S.Ct. 442, 444, 66 L.Ed. 858 (1922); Connally v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540, 548, 22 S.Ct. 431, 435, 46 L.Ed. 679 (1902); State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 29 A. 947 (1893); 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts §§ 7, 165 (1964). It is a misnomer even to refer to such an agreement as a “void contract” because, strictly speaking, no contract exists. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 7 comment a (1981); 1A A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 17 (1963); 1 Williston on Contracts § 15 (W. Jaegar 3d ed. 1957).
In the present case, McNeal hired fifteen-year-old Girard in violation of 26 M.R. S.A. § 773, which absolutely prohibits minors under sixteen from working “in, about or in connection with any manufacturing or mechanical establishment....” According to the parties’ factual stipulation, the truck that ran over Girard was equipped with a refuse collection unit that contained a powered internal blade operated by a side-mounted control lever, as well as a power winch used to pick up large dumpsters. According to Philip McNeal’s own affidavit, the truck’s driver “accidently backed over [Girard] when he fell from the rear of the truck upon which he had been sitting.” On these facts, there can be no doubt that it was a violation of section 773 for McNeal to allow Girard to work with or around this dangerous piece of machinery. The court concedes this point. Disregard of section 773 was no mere technical violation of the law. The possession by Girard of a valid work permit could not cure this violation. Because of Girard’s age, this agreement for hire was illegal and therefore void ab initio. No contract ever existed. Girard was never an employee and therefore not subject to the Worker’s Compensation Act.
The court, however, deliberately frames the issues so as to avoid the plain language of the Act. The court asserts that the Workers’ Compensation Act reflects no legislative intention “to give illegally employed minors special treatment or to penalize their employees beyond the sanctions provided in the Child Labor Laws themselves.” By use of the pejoratives “special treatment” and “penalize,” the court suggests that the plaintiff is seeking to create a Siamese twin by “engrafting” the Child Labor Laws onto the Workers’ Compensation Act. According to such reasoning, employers would lose their immunity not because of a failure to bring themselves within the coverage of the Workers’ Compensation Act, but because of a violation of an unrelated statute.
The court presents the issue exactly backward, however, for McNeal could not possess immunity to a third-party action because he did not fulfill a primary requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Act: he did not, and in fact could not, form a contract for hire with young Girard to *6work at this particular job. No judicial tour de force is necessary to reach that conclusion. On the contrary, one need only read the language of the Act. Under the Act’s definition of employee, it is irrelevant which statute McNeal violated so long as it prevents formation of a contract for hire. Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.