870 N.W.2d 659
S.D.2015Background
- Hofer (born 1956) was hired in 2007 by Redstone Feeders, an exclusively agricultural, family-owned cattle feeding operation; he worked almost exclusively as a truck driver transporting cattle and feed.
- Redstone did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, claiming an exemption for farm or agricultural laborers under SDCL 62-3-15(2).
- On December 17, 2012, Hofer slipped on ice while stepping off his truck at Redstone, injuring his right shoulder and later being found permanently and totally disabled for Social Security purposes.
- Hofer sued to recover for his injury, alleging Redstone violated workers’ compensation laws by failing to provide coverage.
- After discovery, Redstone moved for summary judgment arguing Hofer was an exempt agricultural laborer; the circuit court granted the motion, finding no genuine dispute of material fact.
- Hofer appealed, relying primarily on Keil v. Nelson, which held a trucker working mostly for a separate trucking company was not an exempt farm laborer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hofer was an exempt "farm or agricultural laborer" under SDCL 62-3-15(2) | Keil controls: a trucker who performs predominantly trucking work is not exempt | Hofer worked only for one employer that is exclusively agricultural and hauled only agricultural products, so he is an agricultural laborer and exempt | Court held Hofer was an agricultural laborer — exemption applies |
| Whether any genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment | The determination is factual (per Keil); disputes about primary nature of his work preclude summary judgment | Facts are undisputed: single agricultural employer, hauling only agricultural commodities, so only legal question remains | Court held no genuine factual dispute; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Keil v. Nelson, 355 N.W.2d 525 (S.D. 1984) (truck driver who worked primarily for a separate trucking business was not an exempt farm laborer)
- S.D. Med. Serv. v. Minn. Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 303 N.W.2d 358 (S.D. 1981) (workers’ compensation statutes construed in favor of coverage)
- Goodson v. L.W. Hult Produce Co., 543 P.2d 167 (Idaho 1975) (nature of secondary enterprise determines applicability of workers’ compensation statutes)
- Hawthorne v. Hawthorne, 167 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 1969) (an employee should not alternate in and out of coverage based on momentary changes in activity)