Goodson v. LW Hult Produce Company
543 P.2d 167
Idaho
1975
Check Treatment

*1 to actions 50-219 applicability of I.C. § contract, to state only it is complaint plaintiff is devoid theory a contract language suggesting any sufficiently demon recovery or of facts relationship between

strating a contractual city. motion

plaintiff and defendant pursuant of dismissal

for and order under 12(b)(6)

to I.R.C.P.

summary judgment provisions of I.R.C.P. Hence, only issues raised and sub

56.

ject ruling issues of law.

However, plaintiff foreclosed from is not complaint sounding in

filing an amended days the remittitur

contract within after See; Lawlor Nat’l

herein. Screen

Service, 349 U.S. 99 L. S.Ct. Wright Miller

Ed. & Fed. 611-616; 299; 1357,pp. Prac. 38 Yale L.J. Rieve, F.Supp. (D.C.N.Y.

Chase

1950); Corp., Nagler v. Admiral 248 F.2d (2nd 1957); Dowdy v. Procter & Cir.

Gamble, (5th 1959). 267 F.2d 827 Cir. GOODSON, Claimant-Appellant,

James R.

L. HULT W. COMPANY PRODUCE (non-insured), Defendant- Respondent.

No. 11771.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Nov. *2 Gaskill, Albaugh,

Jay Smith & B. Pike, Falls, claimant-appellant. for Hansen, Boyle, D. of Hansen & John Falls, defendant-respondent. McFADDEN, Justice. Claimant-appellant R. Goodson filed his with the Industrial Commis- claim seeking compensation injuries al- sion employed by the legedly while sustained defendant-respondent Hult Produce L. W. Company. pertinent dispute, re-

At all times Hult, spondent doing business as L. L. W. Company, engaged Hult Produce W. certified growing marketing seed approximately on 350 acres of Moore, Idaho. Follow- farming land near harvest, approxi- Hult stored ing the 1971 62,000 potatoes in three mately cwt. of storage employees farm cellars where his require- sorted them to meet certification 55,000 Approximately cwt. of ments. transported by total were sold and truck cellars; the bulk directly from the of these were marketed as certified seed ones, some, mainly cifically oversized Goodson’s .and potatoes. agricultural pursuit were marketed I. as under total, 6,500 un- remaining parties 72-212(8). cwt. .C. Both submitted potatoes, suitable sale as issue of In- transported miles stor- dustrial five about of Idaho State operated by upon a stipulation warehouse cellars to a facts. Commis- *3 sion, by order, initially the These Hult situated next to railroad. that the concluded washed, sorted, sacked, Upon Act potatoes employment. there cars, Hult, by onto railroad and marketed motion loaded the Industrial Commission quantities. in- commercially To later order in carload withdrew its and received fur- individual railroad ther that he fill evidence. The Commission subse- sure could cars, arrangement quently informal Hult its earlier and con- had reversed order whereby pota- neighbors their cluded that was with three Goodson warehouse, coverage. appealed to the act’s brought Goodson has in fur- washed, sorted, bags sacked from and this order. particular fill a by neighbors to nished the appeal by this principal issue raised Approximately shipment. car railroad erred is whether the Industrial Commission 2,755 by potatoes of the three cwt. owned regarding the in its of the law application through the ware- neighbors were handled exemption (I.C. 72-212(8)) 26, 1972, May between March and house reviewing to facts of case. After 6,500 cwt. along with the exemp- concerning the law by

owned Hult. tion, Industrial concluded that the we have interpretation in Commission erred its by Appellant employed was Goodson application, and reverse order. May 1972, and con- beginning Hult on During his through 25, 1972. tinuing May recog repeatedly has court This Hult, days employment Good- nine be ac policy that “there should nized the and the worked at both the warehouse son Compensation corded to Workmen’s spent storage cellars, greater he a but construction, liberal Act broad and On amount of time at warehouse. be favor doubtful cases should resolved em- May and a fellow Goodson pur compensation, and that the humane picked ployee up end of a hun- each one leave poses acts to serve which these seek dred-pound to load on sack of construc technical no room for narrow facility. hand cart at the warehouse Good- Idaho, 67 University tion.” Smith process right slipped in the son’s foot (1946). holding he fell his left knee while FMC Corp., See also Miller potatoes. sack of Claimant contends Kiger (1970); fall surgery resulted in a need for Corp., permanent partial his left knee and caused 151, 358 P.2d Collins Moyle, disability compensa- sought for which he corollary to the A verbally tion. Goodson informed de- purposes and realization humane May injury fendant of on justice promotion within the workmen’s doctor, which time he advised to see exemptions compensation scheme is that all day. whom he visited the same agri coverage, including one for from narrowly. subsequently pursuits, be filed construed Goodson his written expresses 72-203 compensa- notice of claim for Code section injury and Compensation claim, policy tion. Hult the Workmen’s denying contested the public employment parties by apply that the Act “shall to all were covered the Work- Compensation private express- spe- men’s Act1 and all alleging 1. I.C. 72-101—805. §§ principal business of L. W. exempt by provisions of ly section 72- Company Hult Produce at the time specifically enun- The latter section 212.” pota injury was seed the Act’s cover- R. Goodson ciates from farming. market Hult also conducted “agricultural pursuits” which in- operations ing any ag- “the raising clude or unsuitable for use which were found to be commodity ricultural or horticultural ** legal potatoes. issue before 72-212(8). Addressing *.” I.C. § marketing operation predecessor 72-203, is whether to I.C. § at a potatoes, conducted for commercial against coverage by ruled its “restricting] the seed from warehouse five miles distant construction in cases such restric- where potato cellars, an inci fairly required by tion is not the terms of em principal business of the Moyle, the act itself.” dent Collins v. enterprise. ployer special or In was a A *4 policy of long-standing keeping with the agricultural discussion of the narrowly the ex necessarily predicated upon construing is these funda- emption compensation, policies purposes mental from workmen’s of workmen’s compensation closely will all claims this court examine law. is secondary a inci that business Perrault, In Hubble v. agricultural opera principally dental to a 453, 304 P.2d (1956), 1094 tion. “ * ** court stated general that the character of the pertaining work which the em The the commer facts ployee required perform was hired or is potato operations lead to the cial seed is the test of per whether the labor enterprises conclusion that these two forméd in a covered separateness or in an businesses with sufficient exempt employment.” principal independently determining busi be evaluated in of the employer governs ness compensation coverage. the work workmen’s compensation men’s employee separation status of an physical potato the seed stor of engaged in enterprise that employ age and in potato cellars and commercial ware ment incidental Perrault, to it. Hubble v. against marketing house militate the facili supra; Darrah, Bartlett ty 76 being prin Idaho incident an of the considered (1955); 138 Russell, cipal potatoes, Reed v. business. The commercial (1946); moreover, Mundell po ended their tie with the seed Swedlund, 59 80 P.2d 13 (1938). operation they tato were removed when an employer When in engages secondary during sorting potatoes from the seed the enterprise which, may it although process. be relat removal of While the oversize business, ed to the principal fairly potatoes can be are from which to be used those separate said to special be occupa may princi seed Hult’s be incidental to tion, the special business, nature of the pal disposition business of of them there the employer the supplants principal expert clearly busi in after is An the seed not. ness as the governing in potato factor determin testified before the In business ing the employee status of engaged options regarding in dustrial that enterprise.2 that second disposition Win Manning ranged of oversize Stables, Inc., Her discarding marketing from them in them Perrault, supra. Hubble v. sold various Hult some over- manners. repeatedly recognized may agri- 2. This court has that and under certain circumstances be employer’s cultural, the utilization business as and cir- and under other conditions guide compensation Falen, for workmen’s cover- cumstances not.” Mulanix age, being rather than the immediate task Back- performed injury, Blauser, time can sen v. 520 P.2d 858 unequal create treatment for identical tasks: “The same work done under certain conditions pota- employee exclusively when an in as commercial works in sized sacks cellars, Perrault, had one or the directly but he other. Hubble v. transported warehouse P.2d 1092 most of them When employee, bar, shipped by such in the rail after case at they from which exempt works in both the covered and handling. By choosing to have further employer, potatoes transported to the ware- businesses workmen’s oversized compensation coverage house, shipment, and loaded attaches whenever prepared for employee is engaged in along railroad with the covered en onto cars terprise. This growers, coverage a mar- rule of other embarked reflects Hult po- policy basic keting enterprise his the business distinct from employer operations. specific rather than the task of tato employee coverage; determines operation marketing Finding the merely requires construction special en potatoes to be depend upon shall employee whether principal separate Hult’s from terprise engaged the covered or whether business, must examine business employer at the time in enterprise is an marketing business such a jury. This coverage comports rule of compensation. by workmen’s general policy, legisla reflected in the com exemption to workmen’s tion itself and through enunciated “raising to include pensation is defined decisions, of narrow construction for ex horti any agricultural or or emptions from compensation workmen’s * * 72- I.C. commodity *5 coverage. elaborated has This court 212(8). claimant-appellant, R. Good- ac the limited legislative that statement agricul son, appeal that the argued on also agricultural within tivities which fall exemption in the Com tural Workmen’s product is finished exemption. farmA protection equal pensation Act violates the beyond passes therefore and Idaho and clauses of the United States harvesting noth raising when for its appellant directed the Constitutions. sold, uti it to be ing else need be done for v. attention of the court to Glas Gutierrez Blauser, lized, 95 Backsen v. or consumed. Co., 654, 202 er Crandell Mich. N.W.2d 388 811, (1974); Mulanix Idaho 520 P.2d 858 Michigan (1972), in which the Su 786 293, Falen, 130 866 v. 64 Idaho P.2d accepted equal protection preme an Court Swedlund, 29, 59 Idaho (1942); Mundell v. specific agricultural ex challenge to the time by the 80 P.2d 13 At least compen emption in state’s workmen’s that commercial that the sacked Goodson loaded may in an sation law. While potatoes, they products were finished farm appropriate question, that case resolve completed. and the had been it un disposition at bar renders case po completed handling Hult had all of the pass necessary upon that for this court to they tatoes and to be remained . issue at this time previous shipped. At time the com what mercial became finished farm The order of the Industrial products need not be determined. is reversed and claim remanded for conformity proceedings in further engaged in both a Since Hult opinion. appellant. Costs to principal, exempt special, and a business enterprise, covered this court must deter DONALDSON, SHEPARD govern mine which shall the issue of Good- BAKES, JJ., concur. son’s in both because he worked cellars and the warehouse. McQUADE, (dissenting). Chief Justice previously This court has set forth the guide exempt agree that do with the conclusion occupa the covered or I not pota employer majority tion sacked commercial of the shall that the determine cover 269 potatoes was loading of the actual products at farm finished were very pursuit, at the part agricultural determining of an injury. In time of agri potato operation was an least Hult’s “agricultural employment is an whether pursuit oversize consistently ad until has pursuit,” shipment.3 were and loaded sacked term includes view that to the hered potatoes for loading sacked The task of step process and taken and every shipment clearly was thus- incidental completion a finished farm potato operation con Hult’s commercial majori product.1 apparent is It pursuit.4 Pre agricultural sidered as an description pota ty’s of Hult’s commercial decisions this Court hold vious sacking pota operation the oversize exempt in an general employee engaged shipment loading toes and them for by is not covered workmen’s business integral aspects enterprise. These compensation.5 not cov Thus is Goodson not finished v/ere employee principal ered because he was products, scope farm of Hult’s within the pursuit, an ly engaged in an operations, they until sacked and business, exempt because at the time shipment loaded for in railroad market task inciden quantities.2 performing accident he was car Therefore Goodson tal employment. employed pursuit in an at by injury time of his The order Industrial Commission compensation. workmen’s should be affirmed. Unemployment Blauser, v. v. Backsen with Batt 1. P. 95 Idaho 520 80 P.2d at Stables, Div., (1974) ; Manning v. Win Her C. P.2d 2d 858 Inc., (1967) ; 91 Idaho 428 P.2d 55 Reedy Trummell, Falen, supra 3. See Mulanix v. 1. note Perrault, ; (1966) Hubble Reedy Trummell, supra 4. (1956) ; note Mulanix v. Falen, at 656. 130 P.2d 866 Swedlund, Mundell v. supra Perrault, Hubble note *6 Massey, (1938) ; Cook v. 38 Idaho Darrah, 1094; Bartlett v. at P.2d at 220 P. 1088 462-63, Compare Blauser, supra Backsen v. Dorrell Norida Land & Tim- note cf. Co., and Mundell ber at 520 P.2d at Swedlund, supra note