Carpenter v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the injured claimant is not entitled to the protection of the workmen’s compensation act.

The majority decision rejects the plaintiff’s claim, even though: (1) Under the agreement between the claimant and Qoud, the claimant performed services for a hazardous business (operating trucks for hauling), (2) for which he drew compensation (one-half of the net profits), and (3), while doing so, the claimant was directly injured while performing hazardous work for this business.

The majority reaches this result, basically, on its theory that a…