Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 1924 No. Civ. No. 4845.Published

Before: Tyler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the Commission's finding that the injured party was an employee, concluding instead that he was an independent contractor because the company exercised no control over his work methods.

Issues

Whether the evidence is sufficient to show that the injured party was an employee rather than an independent contractor.

Disposition. Award annulled.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the controlling factor in the determination of the question as to whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is found in the solution of the question as to who has the power of control”

“there is no evidence in the record from which any inference can be drawn which justifies the finding that Wells was an employee of the company.”

TYLER, P. J.

Petition for a writ of

certiorari

to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission.

It appears therefrom that the State Compensation Insurance Fund, a state instrumentality, is the insurance carrier of the Whiting Mead Commercial Company. On June 18, 1923, one Ernest A. Wells sustained injuries by being pinned between an automobile truck and the side of a building, and he subsequently filed his application with the Industrial Accident Commission for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Stats. 1913, p. 279), and he averred that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with the company above mentioned. Thereafter his application came on for hearing before the Commission, which subsequently made an award in his favor and against the State Compensation Insurance Fund as insurance carrier for the sum of $558.69, and it ordered that the Whiting Mead Commercial Company, the alleged employer, be released from further liability. A petition for rehearing was prayed for and denied, whereupon this proceeding was instituted.

The sole question presented by the controversy is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to show that Wells was an employee and not an independent contractor.

The facts are without practical conflict. They show that the Whiting Mead Commercial Company was engaged in the business of wrecking buildings and selling building material. In the conduct of such business it owns and operates some twenty-five trucks for the purpose of delivering its goods to customers. The drivers of these trucks are in the regular employ of the company and are paid regular wages. Wells was at one time such an employee. Some time prior to January, 1922, he left his employment, and at or about the last-mentioned date he, with his brother, interviewed the shipping clerk of the company, who had charge of its delivery yard, and solicited employment. At this time Wells was out of work, and the brother volunteered to assist him in procuring a truck. Owing to pressure of business the company, in addition to using its own trucks, found it necessary to contract with various draying concerns to make delivery of its materials. This extra hauling was sufficient

[620]

Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

AI Brief

TYLER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief