Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

233 Mass. 577

Eckert's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 10, 1919

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1919-10-10

<p>Workmen’s Compensation Act, Independent contractor.</p> <p>In a claim under the workmen’s compensation act against a town, that had accepted St. 1913, c. 807, and was insured under the act, where the claimant at the time of his injury was hauling a load of ashes for the town to be used in the construction of a public way, it appeared that by the claimant’s contract of employment he was to furnish the team and to feed, take care of and drive the horses for a fixed daily remuneration, that the entire management and mode of transportation were under Ms control and that the only orders given by the foreman of the town were to direct him where to go for the ashes and, after the ashes had been loaded by the town’s employees, to dump them at a designated place. Held, that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee of the town and could not be awarded compensation.</p>

Relies on Centrello's Case · McAllister's Case · Winslow's Case

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-10-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2017

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

4019191920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Braley, J.

¶1The undisputed facts shown by the record and found by the Industrial Accident Board are that at the time of the injury the claimant with his team was hauling a load of ashes for the town of Lee to be used in the construction of a public way. It was provided by his contract of employment that he should furnish the team, feed, take care of and drive the horses for a fixed daily remuneration. The entire management and mode of transportation were under his control and the only orders given by the town’s foreman were to direct him where to go for the ashes and after the ashes had been loaded, in which work he took no part, to dump the ashes at a designated place. It is plain as matter of law under McAllister’s Case, 229 Mass. 193, Centrello’s Case, 232 Mass. 456, and Winslow’s Case, 232 Mass. 458, that when injured he was not an employee of the town but an independent contractor.

¶2It having been rightly held and ruled by the board that there could be no recovery under St. 1911, c„ 751, and amendatory acts, the decree dismissing his claim for compensation must be affirmed.

¶3 Ordered accordingly.

/233/mass/577 · .json · Public domain