delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this wоrkmen’s compensation case the decisive issue is whether J. Edward Bohlen, claimant, was an employee of Williams Construction Company, contractor, аt the time he sustained an accidental injury.
Claimant, a laborer and truck driver, had been employed by the construction company since 1940. In June, 1945, the compаny was engaged by Glenn L. Martin Company to tear down a large building at its manufacturing plant and to remove the debris. Claimant was assigned by his company to work on the prоject, and he started to work there early in July. The accident occurred on September 21, 1945, when several laborers were about to load empty drums on his truck. An explosion, which resulted when a lighted match was thrown on some inflammable liquid from one of the drums, set his clothes afire and burned him severely. On November 23, 1946, the State Industrial Aсcident Commission disallowed his claim on the ground that he was not an employee of the company at the time of the accident. He appealеd from that decision to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The main defense of the company and its insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, was that claimant was an independent contractor. The trial Court refused to rule as a matter of law that claimant was not an employee of the company, and the jury returned a verdict that he was its employee. From the judgment on the verdict reversing the decision of the Commission, employer and insurer appealed to this Court.
It is well established that, on an appeal from a decision of the State Industrial Accident Commission, where the terms and manner of employment are undisputed, the Court shоuld determine as a matter of law whether the injured workman was an employee or an independent contractor; but where the terms and manner of emplоyment are disputed, and different inferences may be drawn therefrom, the issue as to the relation that existed between the parties is a mixed question of law and fаct to be determined by the jury under instructions from the
*580
Court.
Bogatsky v. Swerdlin,
The general definition of “employee” is a person who is engaged in an extra-hazardous emplоyment in the service of an employer, carrying on or conducting the same upon the premises or at a plant, or in the course of his employment away from the plant of his employer. Code Supp. 1943, art. 101, sec. 80. “Independent contractor” may be defined as one who contracts to perform a certain work for another according to his own means and methods, free from control of his employer in all details
*581
connected with the performance оf the work except as to its product or result.
Hygeia Ice & Coal Co. v. Schaeffer,
In the court below the office manager of the company testified that claimant’s name was not on the pay roll as an employee, and no deductions had been made from his wages for Social Security and Unemployment Compensation. On the other hand, claimant testified that, while he was a patient in St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore following his accident, he was assured by A. V. Williams, one of the owners of Williams Construction Company, that all his expenses would be paid, and he wаs operated on several times by a surgeon whom he had never employed. Appellants further asserted that, after the company had contractеd to raze the Martin building, J. William Sause, an employment broker, requested claimant to use his truck to haul the debris away. Claimant admitted that he had informed the broker that he would use his truck, but he added that he had previously told the superintendent of the company that he would work on the job. Like other workmen, he was given tickets certifying tо his hours of work and truck hire. He admitted that he had not cashed these tickets with the company for several years, because they were not immediately payable in cash, but that Sause discounted them for him for a commission of 5 per cent. The fact that a workman is obtained by an employment broker, who pays his wages in advance for a discount, does not relieve the employer
*582
from liability for workmen’s compensation.
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission,
In the instant case claimant was not offered a fixed sum for a certain amount of hauling, but was paid at the rate of $1 an hour for his work and $1.50 аn hour for the use of his truck. The fact that a workman is paid by the hour and is not required to complete a definite task is an indication that he is an employee. Whеre a truck owner agrees to haul material at such times as it becomes available, the fact that the contract does not call for complеtion of a certain task according to a definite plan or fixed time- or measure is a circumstance indicating that he is an employee rather than an independent contractor.
Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Bonfils,
Thus it is clear that there is evidence to sustain the finding that claimant was an employee of Williams Construction Company at the time of his accidental injury, and the Court was right in refusing to rule as a matter of law that he was not its employee. The judgment reversing the decision of the Commission will therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.