Legal Opinion

Hill v. E&L FARMS

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1993No. 18537PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON REHEARING

BISTLINE, Justice.

Russet Potato Company (Russet), the employer, and United States Fidelity Guarantee Company (USF & G), Russet’s worker’s compensation surety, appeal from the Industrial Commission’s decision finding Russet to be the employer of the claimant Dean Hill (Hill). The claimant was injured while working on a potato seed duster conveyor belt at E & L Farms. Russet contends that under the “borrowed servant” doctrine the Industrial Commission should have found E & L to be Hill’s employer at the time of the accident.

The Industrial Commission (the Commission) made the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pinson Ex Rel. Pinson v. Minidoka Highway DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Combs v. Kelly LoggingIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Burns v. NybergIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Sines v. SinesIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Paullas v. Andersen ExcavatingIdaho Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lines v. Idaho Forest IndustriesIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Hipwell v. Challenger Pallet & SupplyIdaho Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Monroe v. Chuck & Del's, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Monroe v. Chuck & Del's, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API