Parsons v. Indus. Accident Comm'n

VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.

Certiorari

to review an award made by the Industrial Accident Commission. The admitted facts disclose that petitioner, W. B. Parsons, as owner of certain wooded land, made a contract with William Huddle, the sole and only provisions of which were that the latter was to cut firewood from said land for which Parsons agreed to pay him for each cord of three fourteen-inch tiers the sum of $4.50. Parsons exercised no control over Huddle, who, with his own tools and as a free agent working when and as he pleased, cut such timber as in his judgment was best suited to his purpose in converting it into units, for each of which he was to be paid. The sole question for determination is whether upon this statement of facts, as to which there is no dispute, the status of Huddle was that of an independent contractor or an employee of Parsons as found by the commission.

We are unable to distinguish the facts in the case from those presented in that of

Donlon Bros.

v.

Industrial Accident Commission,

173 Cal. 250, [159 Pac. 715], the decision in which was approved in

Fidelity & Deposit Co.

v.

Brush,

176 Cal. 448, [168 Pac. 890], in both of which it was held that the status of the injured party under a like contract for cutting cordwood was that of an independent contractor. In the Donlon case the contract to cut wood at $4.50 per cord was let to Katioaka, whose subcontractor was injured, and the award made to him was set aside upon the ground that the relation of Katioaka to Donlon was that of an independent contractor, who, by reason of such status, could not recover for injuries, and since the relationship extended to the subcontractor injured, he likewise was not entitled to compensation for the injury sustained. While Katioaka, whose status as to Donlon was precisely the same as that of Huddle to Parsons, was not an applicant for an award for injuries received, nevertheless, it appears from the opinion that the decision was based upon principles which, if applicable, are determinative of the case at bar. In the Brush case, as in this, respondent sought to distinguish it from the Donlon case, but the court upon facts substantially the same as those here

[396]