*1 14,629. No.
Whitney Company et al. v. Mountain States et al.
(102 743) [2d] P. May 6, Decided Byron Mr. G. Attorney General, Mr. Frank Rogers, Bruno, Assistant, A. Mr. W. P. plaintiffs Kavanagh, in error. January
Mr. Darwin P. Messrs. Blount, Coit, & for defendants in error. Yegge, En Banc.
Mr. Justice Burke delivered the of the court. to as hereinafter referred in error are Plaintiffs in error defendants respectively. the Globe, Motors and insur did work for whose industrial *2 injury by He an ance was carried the Globe. sustained growing in and and filed the course of out of that work his claim the him com with commission which awarded pensation. and The district court set aside that award- judgment prosecuted. to The review its this is writ question is, crucial held Was as by independent the or an as held contractor by the court? fact, question to be determined is one the
If conflicting is for the commission. evidence, it from the of the claim conflict, and status is a there Whether questions of for not, the court. is are law ant if there solution, each problems difficult of and are often Such upon Industrial Com its own facts. resolved must be 414, 236 Pac. Hammond, v. 77 Colo. mission Whitney, for never theretofore worked who had by manager Davis in conference its Motors, called was concerning painting show room to used as a the of a be long it cost and how Asked how much it would room. told maximum of Davis he fixed a would take $34.00. wages job.” him “make to on the Whit him he wished necessary implements ney ma and to furnish the was Preferring including so, a did two ladders. terials, belonging to more than one of Motors, as stable ladder painting plank he it and while from a own, his borrowed injured. extending fell His the he between two and was agreement helper Stewart, with whom had no day, by Whitney by dealings, who hired or but was job. agreement completed There no hours was as to paid including pay of $50.00, a total work. paint. price The excess above ment for the contract gratuitous part paint on the of Motors more was because contemplated thought required than was and Davis Whitney’s had bid been too low. tools, material,
Since
furnished
and his own
assistant,
his
controlled
hours and manner of work, con-
lump
completed job,
tracted
was
a
for
for
sum
a certain
responsible only
results,
it seems clear that un-
previous holdings
independent
der our
he was an
con-
tractor.
supra;
Industrial Commission v. Hammond,
Arnold
Lawrence,
v.
The is affirmed. Mr. Justice Otto
Bock dissent.
Mr. Justice Otto Bock dissenting. regret my inability
I pertinent, to concur. far So as (b), chapter section 288 97, ’35 C.S.A., defines the term ** * “employee” “Every person in the service of *3 * * * firm express under hire, contract of or im- * * plied, The commission found that claimant was employee company compensation. and awarded Considering all evidence contained in the mea- ger record, I am of the that the commission could make a reasonable inference therefrom that oral employment, contract here involved was one of contemplating only job nothing labor on the else, hence, that claimant was an and not an independent contractor.
I do not consider the case of Arnold v. Lawrence, 72 controlling. Pac. The issues in that employment case do not relate to as defined in section (b), supra. concurs in this dissent.