Board of Education v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1934 No. Civ. 10017Published

Before: Willis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a person performing work as a condition of receiving public relief is not an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as the arrangement lacks the essential characteristics of a contract of hire and is expressly excluded by statute.

Issues

Was respondent Stout, at the time of injury, an employee as contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act?
Was he excluded from the benefits of such law by the amendment of section 8a thereof in 1933?

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The transaction revealed by the record herein is clearly one lying within the field of public welfare and the essential characteristics of a contract of hire are not found therein”

“Stout received aid from a relief organization in the form of wages in return for service performed only on a relief project. Clearly he is excluded from the category of “employee” as thus limited by the act in question.”

WILLIS, J.,

pro

tem.

In December of 1933, respondent Harry Stout was on the county welfare rolls of Los Angeles County, receiving aid in the form of groceries and foodstuff, being classified as an “open welfare case”. The Civil Works

[413]

Administration (CWA), a federal relief agency, under its plan to furnish relief and relief work in aid of the states, requested the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, among other municipal corporations in Los Angeles County, to outline a project whereby work positions in and about the schools might be furnished, the plan requiring that the persons to fill these positions should be so-called “white collar” persons on the county welfare rolls. The board by resolution furnished an outline of a project, therein providing positions for clerical, gardener and janitor service and such like, but therein expressly declined to assume compensation liability or liability for injuries to workmen on the project. The CWA accepted this project and organized another agency called “Civil Works Service” (CWS) to administer the same, naming the project “Civil Works Service Project No. 8223”. The county welfare officials sent Stout to the board to qualify himself for a position in this project. The board passed upon his qualifications and recommended him for a work order as a gardener, and such order was issued by county welfare to the respondent, who went to work on December 18, 1933, at Fishburn Avenue school in Maywood. He was supervised by the principal of the school in his performance of service, but was subject to discharge or transfer to another project by CWS only and his wages were fixed by the latter and paid by the disbursing officer of CWS from funds derived from federal appropriations provided for federal emergency relief. On January 15, 1934, while working as a janitor at the school, Stout was injured. After a hearing, the respondent commission decided that the county of Los Angeles was the general employer and that the Board of Education was the special employer; that the board received the benefit of his service and that said respondent was injured in the course of and arising out of such employment, and made an award against State Compensation Insurance Fund as insurance carrier of the Board of Education.

Board of Education v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

WILLIS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief