Workmen's compensation — Employee — Independent contractor — Injury in course of employment — Death — Evidence — Sufficiency.
In a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover for the death of the claimant's husband, the evidence disclosed that the decedent was employed by the defendant company as a truck driver at a stated weekly wage. He was also the owner of a garage in which the defendant stored its trucks. He was paid an agreed monthly sum for the use of it and in addition was to make minor repairs and to put oil and gas in the trucks stored in the garage. The defendant had the entire use of the garage and the gas and oil put in the trucks were furnished by the defendant. The services performed by the decedent were under the immediate control of the defendant although that control was slightly exercised by reason of the confidence placed in the decedent, he being faithful and efficient. At the time of the accident, which resulted in the death of the claimant's husband, he was working on the defendant's truck in the garage.
Held: (1) That there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the decedent was killed while performing the services of a servant in the regular course of his employment and in and about premises of which the defendant had the exclusive use, and (2) that the decree of the court below sustaining the award for the claimant will be affirmed.
Argued April 29, 1931.
OPINION BY TREXLER, P.J., July 8, 1931:
The decedent was employed by the defendant company as a truck driver at the wage of 30 to 37 dollars per week. His duty was to haul freight to and from the station and to make deliveries. He was the owner of a garage and was paid $100 per month for the use of it and in addition, he was to look after the trucks of the defendant which were stored in the garage, to put oil and gas in them, and to make minor repairs. When major repairs were necessary, he, after the consent of the employer was obtained, could call in assistance for which the company paid.
The appellant contends that the decedent was an independent contractor. In order to do this, it must show that the company exercised no control over the work done, but was only interested in the result. The employer in this instance had the entire use of the garage. It was understood "that it was practically our garage," the defendant's officer testified. The oil and gas put in the trucks were furnished by the company. At the time of the accident which resulted in the death of plaintiff's husband, he was working on defendant's truck.
We do not think that the performance of additional work in connection with the use of the garage changed the relations between the parties. The services performed by the decedent were under the immediate control of the master although that control was slightly exercised by reason of the confidence placed in the workman, he being faithful and efficient. The fact that the use of the garage was contracted for by the parties should not complicate matters. There is no difficulty in determining that the decedent when he was killed was performing the services as a servant, in the regular course of his employment and in and about premises of which the master had the exclusive use. That the services in the care of the machines were included in the sum which covered the use of the garage does not affect the right to compensation: Gailey v. S. Workmen's Ins. Fund, 286 Pa. 311. There is nothing to justify the conclusion that Young was a garage keeper or an independent contractor and we agree with the lower court that there was ample testimony to support the finding and that the award must be sustained.
The order of the lower court is affirmed.