Mantonya v. Bratlie
California Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I dissent.
As I understand the majority opinion it holds that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the leveling work done on defendant’s land was by an independent contractor, and, therefore, the sum paid to him by defendant was not a part of defendant’s payroll, and hence plaintiff cannot recover on the basis of the law applicable to a person subject to the workmen’s compensation laws who has failed to carry workmen’s compensation insurance. I do not agree with this holding.
It is clear that under the circumstances of this case, as pointed out by the majority opinion, the plaintiff is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Unemployment Compensation Comm'n of Alaska v. AragonSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.