Stephens v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Supreme Court

Stephens v. Industrial Accident Commission

215 P. 1025, 191 Cal. 261, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 448

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1923

DocketS. F. No. 10549.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 215 P. 1025 (Stephens v. Industrial Accident Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephens v. Industrial Accident Commission, 215 P. 1025, 191 Cal. 261, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 448 (Cal. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

WASTE, J.

This is a proceeding to review the action of the Industrial Accident Commission in awarding compensation to H. Westlake, the applicant below, who was injured while hauling sand to be used by Stephens, the insured, in the construction of a bridge.

[1] The issue involved is whether or not Westlake was an employee or an independent contractor.

The undisputed facts in the case appear to be that West-lake, the applicant for compensation, had for many years been the owner of wagons of different capacities, and a number of horses. Stephens, one of the petitioners, was a bridge contractor, and had undertaken to construct a bridge at French Gulch. He arranged with Westlake for the latter to haul the required amount of sand from a designated place to the bridge, to be paid for upon the basis of one dollar and fifty cents per cubic yard for the amount hauled. Westlake testified before the Commission that Stephens had given him the “the whole job” of hauling sand, but later told him he wanted another party to haul part of it. Westlake pursued his own course in hauling the sand. Stephens gave him no directions other than to show him the place from which it was to be taken and where delivered. Westlake was free to come and go as he pleased, using as many or as few wagons as he chose. No supervision, direction, or control of any character was exercised over his movements. He was left to do the work in his own way, by his own methods, and with his own teams. Under these facts, concerning which there is no dispute, Westlake was unquestionably an independent contractor. (Freiden v. Industrial Acc. Com., 190 Cal. 48 *263 [210 Pac. 420]; Pryor v. Industrial Acc. Com., 186 Cal. 169 [198 Pac. 1045] ; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Brush, 176 Cal. 448 [168 Pac. 890]; Donlon v. Industrial Acc. Com., 173 Cal. 250 [159 Pac. 715].)

It follows that the award must be annulled, and it is so ordered.

Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., Seawell, J., Myers, J., and Wilbur, C. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WASTE, J.

This is a proceeding to review the action of the Industrial Accident Commission in awarding compensation to H. Westlake, the applicant below, who was injured while hauling sand to be used by Stephens, the insured, in the construction of a bridge.

[1] The issue involved is whether or not Westlake was an employee or an independent contractor.

The undisputed facts in the case appear to be that West-lake, the applicant for compensation, had for many years been the owner of wagons of different capacities, and a number of horses. Stephens, one of the petitioners, was a bridge contractor, and had undertaken to construct a bridge at French Gulch. He arranged with Westlake for the latter to haul the required amount of sand from a designated place to the bridge, to be paid for upon the basis of one dollar and fifty cents per cubic yard for the amount hauled. Westlake testified before the Commission that Stephens had given him the “the whole job” of hauling sand, but later told him he wanted another party to haul part of it. Westlake pursued his own course in hauling the sand. Stephens gave him no directions other than to show him the place from which it was to be taken and where delivered. Westlake was free to come and go as he pleased, using as many or as few wagons as he chose. No supervision, direction, or control of any character was exercised over his movements. He was left to do the work in his own way, by his own methods, and with his own teams. Under these facts, concerning which there is no dispute, Westlake was unquestionably an independent contractor. (Freiden v. Industrial Acc. Com., 190 Cal. 48 *263 [210 Pac. 420]; Pryor v. Industrial Acc. Com., 186 Cal. 169 [198 Pac. 1045] ; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Brush, 176 Cal. 448 [168 Pac. 890]; Donlon v. Industrial Acc. Com., 173 Cal. 250 [159 Pac. 715].)

It follows that the award must be annulled, and it is so ordered.

Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., Kerrigan, J., Seawell, J., Myers, J., and Wilbur, C. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 P. 1025, 191 Cal. 261, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-industrial-accident-commission-cal-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack