153 A. 561
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Penobscot.
Opinion February 24, 1931.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
One who engages in work under the direction, control, and with the coöperation and assistance of another, is not, with respect to that party, an independent contractor.
A Workmen’s Compensation Case. Appeal from decree of the Superior Court affirming decision of the Industrial Accident Commission, awarding compensation to the petitioner. The question at issue was whether or not petitioner was an independent contractor. The court finds not. Appeal dismissed. Decree affirmed, with costs. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
Charles P. Conners, for petitioner.
Hinckley, Hinckley Shesong, for respondents.
SITTING: PATTANGALL, C. J., DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, THAXTER, JJ.
BARNES, J.
An action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, on appeal from decree of the Superior Court affirming decision of the Industrial Accident Commission.
Respondents denied each allegation of the petition and defended on the allegation that petitioner was an independent contractor.
From the reported testimony it appears that petitioner left the work of unloading his produce, and for the going rate of wages
Page 65
proceeded, with his horses, to plow snow from ways between piles of wood or lines of skids for woodpiles to be designated by an agent or servant of the respondent.
While the horses were being hooked, by petitioner and such agent or servant, to the plow furnished by respondent, the accident complained of happened. It is clear that the Commissioner was justified in finding from the evidence that the work engaged in was being prosecuted under the control, coöperation, and assistance of respondent.
There is no contention that the rate of wages fixed by the Commissioner is unfair or improper.
We see no grounds for reversal.
Appeal dismissed.
Decree affirmed, with costs.