Los Flores School District v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Apr 9, 1936 No. Civ. 1636Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence established the worker was an independent contractor rather than an employee, as the school district lacked the right to control the worker's methods and the worker was engaged to complete a specific result.

Issues

Whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Whether the work performed by the worker constituted casual employment not in the prosecution of the petitioner's trade or business.

Disposition. annulled and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that the foregoing evidence raises a strong inference, not overcome by any evidence, that Green was an independent contractor and not an employee.”

“The determinative factor is usually found in the solution of the question: Who has the power of control, not as to the result of the work only, but as to the means and method by which such result is accomplished!”

[182]

MARKS, J.

This is an original proceeding instituted to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding Alfred Green compensation for an injury received while painting a water tank on the school grounds of petitioner.

Two grounds for the annulment of the award are urged: (1) that Green was not an employee of petitioner, but an independent contractor, and (2) that the work performed by Green was casual employment and not in the prosecution of the trade or business of petitioner.

The evidence before us discloses that in June, 1935, Green, a painter by trade, was employed as an SERA worker; that he was known to the members of the board of trustees of petitioner as a competent craftsman; that the board of trustees desired to have a water tank painted, and also to have some patch painting done on some of the buildings on the school grounds; that Arthur W. Russell was a member of the school board; that a few days before June 25, 1935, Russell saw Green and discussed with him the doing of this work; that Green was familiar with the work to be done and estimated the time necessary to complete it at three or four days and wanted five dollars per day; that this was satisfactory to Russell and he had Green sign the following receipt: ‘ ‘ Summit, California, Juhe 25, 1935, To 4 days labor painting on Los Plores School @ $5.00 per day

days

$5.00 . . . $20.00. Received payment Alfred Green”; that on June 27 an “order requisition” was made out in favor of Green for “4 days painting at 5 dollars per day $20.00” drawn on the county treasurer of San Bernardino County and sent to the school superintendent of that county for approval prior to payment; that it was returned for correction because of errors in form; that had it been approved by the superintendent a voucher in favor of Green would have been drawn and delivered to him. The district furnished the paint for the work. On July 15, 1935, while engaged in the performance of the contract Green fell from a ladder and was seriously injured and proceedings were instituted by him before the Industrial Accident Commission which resulted in the award of compensation which is under attack here. It is probable that Green worked at his painting on June 23 d and 30th, and on July 7th and 14th, and also July 15, 1935.

Los Flores School District v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief