(DOWNLOAD) "Wilbur Lewis Miller v. Fmc Corporation" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10595 * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wilbur Lewis Miller v. Fmc Corporation
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10595
- Release Date : January 25, 1970
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
This negligence action was commenced in the district court in January, 1969, by plaintiff-appellant Wilbur Lewis Miller against
defendants-respondents FMC Corporation and Ruben L. Cooper and Gerald D. Cooper, doing business as Cooper Brothers Construction
Company. The respondents moved separately for summary judgment in the following May. The district court, in July, 1969, granted
both of their summary judgment motions. The court concluded that there was no issue of material fact between the parties and
that FMC and Cooper Brothers were statutory employers under I.C. § 72-1010. The court held, therefore, that appellant
was precluded from bringing a negligence action by the Workmen's Compensation Statute, I.C. § 72-203,[Footnote 1]
and that he could only look to the Industrial Accident Board for his exclusive remedy. From the order granting respondents'
motions for summary judgment, Miller has brought this appeal. The only questions before this Court are whether there were
issues of material fact concerning Miller's status as a statutory employee of Cooper Brothers and FMC. We hold that there
were not and affirm the district court's judgment. Respondent FMC Corporation operates a large phosphate ore reducing plant in Power County, Idaho, approximately six miles
west of Pocatello. In the spring of 1968, FMC determined that construction maintenance work should be performed on various
buildings at that plant site. Respondent Cooper Brothers Construction Co. contracted with FMC to do this work. As the work
progressed, FMC decided that certain holes in the walls of their #1 transformer vault, a building containing a substantial
quantity of very high voltage and amperage electrical equipment, should be patched by masonry construction and not by reinforced
concrete as originally planned. In order to have this and other masonry work done, Cooper Brothers orally contracted with
one Ted Ricks, a mason, who in turn, employed appellant. The record discloses that FMC had Cooper Brothers do this repair
work because they had no regular maintenance employees or facilities capable of doing it, and that neither Cooper nor FMC
employed a person specially skilled as a mason.