Summary
In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dobbs, 128 Tex. 547, 100 S.W.2d 349, the court held that one who was employed by an independent contractor engaged in the business of spraying citrus trees, but who had nothing else to do with the planting and growing of the trees, was not a "farm laborer" within the exemption clause of the Compensation Act.
Summary of this case from Dockery v. ThomasOpinion
No. 9305.
April 4, 1934. Rehearing Denied May 2, 1934.
Appeal from Hidalgo County Court; E. C. Couch, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Homer Dobbs, claimant, in the employ of the Hall-Prather Company, opposed by the Maryland Casualty Company, insurance carrier. The Industrial Accident Board granted an award, and, judgments for a like amount having been rendered against the insurance carrier in a justice's court and later in the county court, the insurance carrier appeals.
Affirmed.
R. H. Mercer, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Mitchell Hartley, of McAllen, for appellee.
The Industrial Accident Board awarded to appellee compensation in the sum of $169.05, from which award appellant appealed to a justice's court, where judgment was rendered against it for the same sum. An appeal was then perfected to the county court, where a judgment was rendered for a like amount as in the justice's court, and from that judgment appellant has appealed.
Appellee was in the employ of Hall-Prather Company, which was engaged in the business of spraying citrus trees for certain compensation. Appellee, while spraying a certain citrus orchard, accidentally got some of the spraying liquid in his eyes which injured them, and he filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board and obtained the results hereinbefore stated.
Appellee was not employed by any one except the company for which he was working and had no connection whatever with the farming or orchard business. He was not a domestic servant, farm laborer, or ranch laborer, and was not engaged in agricultural or horticultural pursuits. He did not become transformed into a farm laborer by working for a firm which had no connection with a citrus farm, except to apply to them a certain mixture for the destruction of insects. The firm for which he was working was not engaged in agricultural or horticultural pursuits.
There is no merit in this appeal, and the judgment will be affirmed.