Sandburn v. Hall
1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 155, 96 N.E.2d 912, 121 Ind. App. 428 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Employment for a single, substantial job that is expected to last for a considerable period of time, such as several weeks or months, is not considered 'casual' employment and therefore is not excluded from coverage under workmen's compensation law.
Facts:
- John Hall, who owned a hardware and machinery business, purchased a dwelling house for his personal residence.
- The house required substantial modernization and repairs, including the installation of a new bathroom and kitchen.
- Hall hired the appellant, a carpenter, and his father to perform the remodeling work, excluding the electrical and plumbing.
- The appellant began work in early July 1949 and worked steadily each day on the project.
- On July 25, 1949, while plastering a ceiling as part of the job, plaster fell into the appellant's left eye, causing significant injury.
- The total duration of the remodeling project was expected to be, and ultimately was, between six and eight weeks.
- The appellant never performed any services for Hall's separate hardware business.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant filed an application for workmen’s compensation with the Indiana Industrial Board.
- The Industrial Board found that the appellant's employment was 'casual' and issued an award denying his claim.
- The appellant appealed the Industrial Board's decision to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a carpenter's employment to perform a residential remodeling job, which is expected to last between six and eight weeks, considered 'casual' employment that would exclude him from workmen's compensation benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiltrout, C. J.
No. The employment was not casual because it involved a single, substantial job lasting for a considerable period. The court reasoned that in states like Indiana without a statutory definition of 'casual,' the determination depends on the specific facts of each case. An employment is not casual if it is not fortuitous, uncertain, occasional, or haphazard. The court cited legal treatises establishing that employment for a single job lasting several weeks or months is generally regarded as regular, not casual. The court distinguished a prior case, Mason v. Wampler, on the grounds that the arguments in that case did not require the court to consider the effect of the duration and substantial nature of the employment, making it not controlling precedent here.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification of the 'casual employment' exception within Indiana's workmen's compensation framework. It establishes that the duration and substantiality of a single project are key factors in determining whether employment is 'casual.' The ruling shifts the focus from the frequency of employment to the nature of the specific job, offering greater protection to workers hired for significant, albeit temporary, projects like major renovations. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to evade workmen's compensation liability by labeling substantial, one-time jobs as casual employment.
