Valente v. Industrial Accident Commission
TONY VALENTE, a Minor, Etc., Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Respondents
- Proceeding
- writ
- Outcome
- other — Herrscher and Simeon E.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William H. Langdon (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Langdon
LANGDON, P. J.
Petitioner seeks an annulment of an award of the Industrial Accident Commission denying him compensation, which order was based upon a finding that petitioner at the time of the injury was an independent contractor.
Petitioner, a woodchopper at the time of the injury, was chopping wood under respondent Peterson, who had a contract for the delivery of wood with the Albion Lumber Company. Petitioner was paid by the cord for such wood as he should chop and was free to fix his hours of labor per day and days per week. Peterson did not furnish tools, but as petitioner had none, Peterson gave him tools which another man had left in camp upon quitting work. Except to designate the place where the wood was to be cut, Peterson exercised no direction or control over the work.
The decision of the Industrial Accident Commission was made upon the authority of Donlan Bros.
v. Industrial Acc. Com., 173 Cal. 250 [159 Pac. 715], Fidelity Deposit Co.
v. Brush, 176 Cal. 448 [168 Pac. 890], and Parsons v. Industrial Acc. Com., 178 Cal. 394 [173 Pac. 585], in which the facts determinative of the status are substantially the same as in the instant case. We believe these cases are indistinguishable in any important aspect from the case at bar and are controlling.
The contention that petitioner can change the status from independent contractor to employee by disaffirming the contract by reason of his minority we think is without merit.
Award of the Industrial Accident Commission affirmed.
Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Parsons v. Indus. Accident Comm'n S. F. No. 8652. In Bank. · 1918-06-06
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Brush S. F. No. 8127. In Bank. · 1917-11-10
- Donlon Bros. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n of Cal. L. A. No. 4511. · 1916-08-02
Cited by
- Riskin v. Industrial Accident Commission L. A. 18723 · 1943-12-07
- Provensano v. Division of Industrial Accidents Docket No. 7599. · 1930-12-05