Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 296 Neb. 608

Plaintiff Robert Kohout was injured falling from a barn roof while working on repairs at Brian Shook’s property in May 2015.
Kohout was hired and supervised by Nick Bennett, who operated as sole-proprietor businesses (Nick Bennett Construction and Housecraft) and provided invoices/checks in his own name; Nick sometimes used Mark Bennett’s (Bennett Construction) business cards and proposal forms that stated workers were covered by compensation insurance.
Bennett Construction (Mark Bennett) is a separate sole proprietorship that at times subcontracted work to Nick; Bennett Construction did have workers’ compensation insurance, Nick’s businesses did not.
Shook paid by checks, including one made out to “Bennett’s Construction” which Mark cashed and then reimbursed Nick; Mark visited the Shook site once but did not direct the work.
Kohout sued Bennett Construction and its insurer for workers’ compensation benefits, arguing Bennett Construction was his statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116 because Mark and Nick used a scheme (apparent authority or joint venture) to avoid liability; the Workers’ Compensation Court dismissed the claim and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Bennett Construction Kohout’s statutory employer under § 48-116?	Kohout: Nick had apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction (business cards, proposal forms, a check cashed by Mark, Mark’s site visit) and Mark allowed uninsured subcontracting — a device to avoid WC liability.	Bennett: Nick contracted, supervised, and paid Kohout as his own business; Mark made no affirmative manifestations authorizing Nick; Bennett did not benefit or control the Shook job.	Court: No. Shook’s belief was not traceable to Mark/Bennett; indicia (cards/forms) weren’t shown to be authorized by Mark; Nick lacked apparent authority and the contract was with Nick alone.
Did Mark and Nick form a joint venture that would make Bennett Construction liable?	Kohout: Post-hailstorm arrangements showed a family scheme to obtain jobs and use Mark’s forms to induce clients, implying joint venture intent.	Bennett: No voluntary agreement, no shared profits, no significant financial or managerial contribution by Mark, and no evidence of Mark’s control of the job.	Court: No. Kohout failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence intent, contribution, profit-sharing, or control necessary for a joint venture.

Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (recognizing § 48-116 limits and appellate review standards)
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326 (defining apparent authority principles)
O’Brien v. Barnard, 145 Neb. 596 (discussing when arrangements do not constitute statutory-employer schemes)
Thomas v. Hansen, 524 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 1994) (example where joint venture found to avoid WC laws)
Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87 (family relationships may be given different weight in joint venture analysis)