Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

and more than ten days is not casual," even though it may not be in the usual course of the employer's business.78

In Wisconsin repairs about an industrial plant are neither casual nor without the usual course of business.79

A laborer employed by a sewer builder over a period of five months, and who was injured while going from one job to another was not a casual employee. The contract of employment governing, and not the particular work being done.80

Where the contract was for a fixed rate of wages and was to continue as long as the employer had any work to be done, the employment was held not to be casual.81

A carpenter foreman engaged in the construction of a 14 room house, involving several months of continuous work, was not casually employed.8

82

The fact that the employee is merely "on trial", does not make his employment casual.83

§ 31. Farm Labor.-Since all the American Compensation. Acts, except New Jersey and Hawaii, expressly or impliedly ex

W. C. L. J. 458, 119 N. E. 972; Thompson v. Twiss, 90 Conn. 444., 97 Atl. 328; American Steel & Foundries Co. v. Ind. Bd., 119 N. E. 902, 284 Ill. 99, 2 W. C. L. J. 462; Doherty v. Grosse Isle, 205, Mich. 592, 172 N. W. 596, 4 W. C. L. J. 222; Marshall Field & Co. v. Ind. Comm. of Ill., 285 Ill. 333, 120 N. E. 773, 3 .W C. L. J. 105, 18 N. C. C. A. 134; Cinofsky et. al. v. Ind. Comm. et al., 290 Ill. 521, 125 N. E. 286, 5 W. C. L. J. 185; Indus. Comm. v. Funk, Colo. 191 Pac. 125, 6 W. C. L. J. 436. 77. Jones v. Indus. Comm. Cal. App. —, 200 Pac. 111, Conn. Act § 71⁄2 (b); Augustine v. Cotter, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 59; Brain v. Eisfelder, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 30; Trenholm v. Hough, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 260. 78. Armstrong v. Ind. Acc. Comm., 36 Cal. App. 1, 171 Pac, 321, 1 W. C. L. J. 922.

.

[ocr errors]

79. F. C. Cross & Bros. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 167 Wis. 612, 167 N. W. 809, 2 W. C. L. J. 415; Holman Creamery Ass'n. v. Ind. Comm., 167 Wis. 470, 167 N. W. 808, 2 W. C. L. J. 412.

80. Scully v. Ind. Comm. of Ill., 284 III. 567, 120 N. E. 492, 18 N. C. C. A. 136, 3 W. C. L. J. 30.

81. Johnson v. Choate, 284 Ill. 14, 119 N. E. 972, 2 W. C. L. J. 458.

82.

Miller & Lux v. Industrial Acc. Comm.,

651, 14 N. C. C. A. 1087.

Cal. App.

83. Mueller v. Oelkers Mfg. Co., 36 N. J. L. J 117.

162 Pac.

clude farm labor from their operation, the question of what may or may not properly be considered such labor within the intent of the various acts is naturally of importance. The exclusion of farm labor was perhaps based more on legislative expedience than upon sound reason, as the accidental injuries suffered in this class of employment ranks next to that of railroad employment, according to a report of the Wisconsin Labor Bureau, while other American and also European experience proves quite conclusively that agriculture is a highly hazardous employment. It is not excluded from the acts of the more important European countries.8+ It may be said, however, that the farm industry is perhaps less able than others to add the cost of compensation insurance to the market price of its product and pass it on to the consumer be cause that price is as a rule fixed by those in control of distant markets, and is perhaps also more quickly affected by the law of supply and demand than the products of most other industries.

9785

"Employment of farm labor" and "agricultural employments" are used as more or less synonymous terms in the various compensation acts. Thus the court in an Alabama case quotes the following definition. from Webster. "Agriculture is the art or science of cultivating the ground, especially in fields or in large quantities, including the preservation of the soil, the planting of seeds, the raising and harvesting of crops, and the rearing, feeding and management of live stock; tillage; husbandry; farming.' "The common hired man on a farm is required to perform a great variety of work. His duties are not confined to plowing, planting and harvesting. Tilling the soil and gathering in the crops may be the principal work of the farm laborer, but they are by no means his exclusive work. All the multifarious work of operating a farm must be done by somebody; and who is to do it except the farm laborer? It is, of course, necessary to keep the farm machinery in repair-the reapers, mowers, corn harvesters, sulky plows, wagons, harness,

84. Great Britain, Germany, Austria Hungary, Italy,

85. Dillars v. Webb, 55 Ala. 474; Springer v. Lewis, 22 Pa. 191; Farm defined Winn v. Cabot, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 553; Wheeler v. Randall, 6 Metc. (Mass.) 529; Commonwealth v. Carmalt, 2 Binn. (Penn.) 235 Seggebruch v. Ind. Comm. of Ill., 123 N. E. 276, 4 W. C. L. J. 156.

etc. It is just as necessary to keep the farm buildings in repair, and occasionally to make small additions to them. This is part of the routine work of the farm laborer; just as much so as milking the cows, cleaning off the horses, building fences, putting a new point on the plow, doctoring a sick horse, butchering the hogs, greasing the wagons, assisting the threshers, driving the team to market and innumerable other familiar duties.

"Is the hired man, who pounds his finger while shingling the pig pen, any the less a 'farm laborer' than when he pounds his finger while building a fence? It is the duty of a farm laborer to build a load of hay; it is likewise his duty to help shingle the barn to protect the hay from the elements. Both processes are necessary in order to preserve the hay. Both are essentially within the scope of the duties of the farm laborer, and it makes no difference in principle whether he breaks his leg falling from the roof of the barn or the load of hay.'

77 86

It has been held that the fact that a farm hand was engaged in logging in the winter did not take his work out of the class of "farm labor" as used in the compensation act;87 that an employee injured while operating a corn shredder for his employer, who was operating under a contract with a farmer to do such work, was engaged in farm labor even though the employer was operating the corn shredder as an independent contractor for profit, that an employee of a drug manufacturer which operated a farm in furtherance of its business on which the employee worked was a farm laborer;89 that one temporarily engaged in making repairs on a dairy barn, though his regular occupation

88

86. Coleman v. Bartholomew, 175 App. Div. 122, 161 N. Y. Supp. 560; Smith v. Coles, 93 L. T. 754, 8 W. C. C. 116; In re Kasney, 104 N. E. 438, 217 Mass. 5; Kauri v. Messner, 198 Mich. 126, 164 N. W. 537, 17 N. C. C. A. 467. Contra, State v. Nelson, Minn., 176 N. W. 164, 5 W. C. L. J.

547; Uphoff v. Indus. Bd., 271 Ill. 312, 111 N. E. 128.

87. Brockett v. Mietz, 184 App. Div. 342, 171 N. Y. S. 412, 2 W. C. L. J.

688.

88.

Slycord v. Horn, 179 Iowa 936, 162 N. W. 249, A 1 W. C. L. J. 589, 16 N. C. C. A. 592.

89. Shafer v. Parke, etc. Co., 192 Mich. 577, 159 N. W. 304; Saggebruch v. Ind. Comm. of Ill., 123 N. E. 276, 4 W. C. L. J. 156.

91

was that of farm laborer, was excluded from the act;90 that a person engaged to milk cows and take care of poultry is a farm. laborer; that a teamster engaged to haul to town the wood and brush, which a farmer was cutting down to clear his land, was a farm laborer;92 that blasting out stumps may be agriculture work;93 that one hired to clear land to be set out with fruit trees is a farm laborer;94 that a farm hand ordered to haul a load of lumber from a point in a city to a railroad station for shipment to another farm of his employer is still a farm laborer;95 that the employees of the owner of a hay press who go from farm to farm to bale hay at a stipulated price are farm laborers." 96

The owner of a farm is not within the act when building a barn upon the farm. As stated by the court, "If this was a work within the usual course of their business or occupation, then it was farm labor, and if it was farm work, there is no escape from the conclusion that one performing it was a 'farm laborer' and 'farm laborers' have been denied the benefit of

of the Compensation Act."7

One engaged as a janitor, and whose duties included the care of the trees and grounds, and who was injured while trimming a tree, was engaged in horticulture within the meaning of the California Act and hence not within the Act.98

Where a group of farmers purchased a threshing machine primarily for their own use, "such primary purpose becomes

90.

Coleman v. Bartholomew, 175 App. Div. 122, 161 N. Y. S. 560. 91. Wolfe v. E. W. Scripps, 1 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. (Part II) 509. 92. Hanson v. Scott, 2 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 721.

93.

Martin v. Russian River Fruit and Land Co., 1 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. (Part II) 18.

94. Whitney v. Charles Peterson, 1 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. (Part II) 306. 95. Ratcliff v. C. F. De Witt Co., 1 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. (Part II) 639. 96. Andrus v. Atkinson (1916), Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 224; Morris v. Spears, 1 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 224; Vincent v. Louis, 2 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 168; Neimeyer v. Volger, 2 Cal. Ind. Acc. Com. 335; Threshing machine case, State v. Watonwan (Minn.) 168 N. W. 130, 2 W. C. L. J. 522. 97. State ex rel. Foss et ux. Nelson Dist. Judge, 145 Minn. N. W. 164, 5 W. C. L. J. 547.

176,

98. George v. Ind. Acc. Comm. 178 Cal. 733, 174 Pac. 653, 2 W. C. L. J.

748.

controlling in determining the nature and character of their business within the meaning of the Industrial Act," and the court held that one employed upon the machine was engaged in farm labor.99

But a servant employed to poison prairie dogs for an employer engaged in cattle raising is not a farm laborer.1

A farm laborer who incidentally helps harvest ice to be stored for use on the farm is engaged in farm labor.2

One assisting another who is driving a caterpillar engine attached to a harrow is engaged in farm work and not in the operation of farm machinery within the exception of an insurance policy excluding such operation.3

A farmer does not become a bridge builder by building a bridge on his farm.*

It has been held that the exemption of farm laborers does not violate the clause of the constitution, requiring equal protection of the laws.5

One hauling garbage in his own truck, to his employer's farm, where it was fed to pigs, was held to be a "farm laborer.

[ocr errors]

§ 32. Employments Held not to be Farm Labor.-It has been held that one employed by the owner of a threshing outfit to go from farm to farm and thresh as a business is not a farm laborer; that a carpenter who sometimes did farm labor when there

99. Jones v. Ind. Comm., Utah 187 Pac. 833, 5 W. C. L. J. 747; State ex rel. John Bykle v. Dist. Court, 140 Minn. 398, 168 N. W. 130, 16 N. C. C. A. 596. But see note 7, sec. 32. 1. C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Pastrana, 217 S. W. 749, 5 W. C. L. J. 599.

2.

3.

[ocr errors]

Tex. Civ. App. (1919)

Muller v. Little, 173 N. Y. S. 578, 3 W. C. L. J. 500.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Indus. Acc. Comm.

4. National Acc. Society v. Taylor, 42 Ill. App. 97.

[blocks in formation]

Cal.

[blocks in formation]

6. State Indus. Comm. v. Wiseman, 183 N. Y. S. 112 (1920), 6 W. C.

L. J. 481.

7. In re Boyer, 64 Ind. App. 117 N. E. 507, 1 W. C. L. J. 45, 16 N. C. C. A. 592; White v. Loades, 178 App. Div. 236, 164 N. Y. S. 1023; Vincent v. 287, 1 W. C. L. J. 692; Reed v. Smith Wikinson

Taylor Bros., 180 App. Div. 563, 168 N. Y. S.
Connolly v. Peoples, G. L. & C. Co.., 260 Ill. 162;
Co., (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 223.

W. C.-10

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »