Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Hubred v. Control Data Corp.

    442 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1989)   Cited 314 times
    Holding that where material facts are not in dispute, reviewing court need not defer to trial court's application of law

    Thus, as an employee of the corporation, Chester Hubred's injury during the course of his duties falls squarely within the scope of the exclusion. Hubred's citation to Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co., 219 Minn. 294, 17 N.W.2d 502 (1945) does not lead to a different conclusion. Korovilas held that the president and major stockholder of a corporation was in business for himself and thus was not an employee of that corporation for purposes of the workers' compensation act, Minn.Stat. § 176.01 et seq. (1941).

  2. Stotts v. Comp. Director

    140 S.E.2d 604 (W. Va. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    99 C.J.S., Workmen's Compensation, Section 82, b, Dual Capacity Doctrine; West Virginia Coal and Coke Corporation v. State Compensation Commissioner, supra. It has been held in some cases that a president or other officer of a corporation may not be deemed to be an employee where he is in effect the corporation itself by virtue of owning most of the stock and supervising the work of such company. 99 C.J.S., Workmen's Compensation, Section 82; Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co., (Minn.), 17 N.W.2d 502; Manfield Firman Co. v. Manfield, (Ind.), 182 N.E. 539; Bowne v. S.W. Bowne Co., (N. Y.), 116 N.E. 364. However, several comparatively recent cases hold to the contrary.

  3. Shillinglaw v. Owen Shillinglaw Fuel Company

    70 N.M. 65 (N.M. 1962)   Cited 19 times

    That this has been held under certain circumstances and the peculiar facts present in particular cases cannot be denied. Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co. Inc., 219 Minn. 294, 17 N.W.2d 502; Ben-Jay Food Distributors Inc. v. Worshaw (Fla.), 70 So.2d 564; Leigh Aitchison Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 188 Wis. 218, 205 N.W. 806, 44 A.L.R. 1213; Hodges v. Home Mortgage Co., 201 N.C. 701, 161 S.E. 220. However, that under somewhat different facts and circumstances, a corporate officer may nevertheless be considered an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act, particularly when he is injured while performing a duty which was ordinarily done by employees, has been decided in cases from these same jurisdictions, as well as from many others.

  4. Sormanti v. Marsor Jewelry Co.

    83 R.I. 438 (R.I. 1955)   Cited 12 times
    In Sormanti v. Marsor Jewelry Co., 83 R.I. 438, the court said at page 441: "It is generally held that it is impossible to determine the relationship of employer and employee by any hard and fast rule.

    Unless there is such identity between the alleged employee and the corporation that it deprives the latter of the power to control the relationship of employer and employee as where the employee is practically the corporation or owns enough stock to dictate its policy and prudential affairs, it is generally held that a corporate officer performing nonexecutive work attended with the normal incidents of employment is an employee. For illustrative cases see In re Bowne v. Bowne Co., 221 N.Y. 28; Manfield Firman Co. v. Manfield, 95 Ind. App. 70; Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co., 219 Minn. 294; Hirsch v. Hirsch Brothers, Inc., 97 N.H. 480; Higgins v. Bates Street Shirt Co., 129 Me. 6; Emery's Case, 271 Mass. 46; Adam Black Sons, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County, 8 N.J. Misc. 442; Stevens v. Industrial Comm'n, 346 Ill. 495; Dewey v. Dewey Fuel Co., 210 Mich. 370; Columbia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 200 Wis. 8; Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438; Millers' Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hoover, Tex. Civ. App., 216 S.W. 475. See also 1 Larson Workmen's Comp., § 54.21. pp. 786-788.

  5. Pederson v. Pederson

    39 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. 1949)   Cited 14 times
    In Pederson v. Pederson, 229 Minn. 460, 39 N.W.2d 893, the issue raised was whether a partner was an employee of the partnership business within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    Furthermore, the requirement of the employer-employe relationship underlies the holdings in the line of cases dealing with the question of whether, prior to L. 1947, c. 197, an officer of a corporation was an employe performing services for the corporation under a contract of hire and the line of cases dealing with the question of whether the injured worker was an employe or an independent contractor, cases in which this court established certain factual tests for determining the existence of the employer-employe relationship. Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422, 223 N.W. 772; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304, 229 N.W. 101; Benson v. Hygienic Artificial Ice Co. 198 Minn. 250, 269 N.W. 460; March v. March Gardens, Inc. 203 Minn. 195, 280 N.W. 644; Bendix v. The Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439, 14 N.W.2d 464; Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co. Inc. 219 Minn. 294, 17 N.W.2d 502; Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc. 227 Minn. 572, 36 N.W.2d 12. In the following cases it was assumed that an officer could be an employe: Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422, 223 N.W. 772; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304, 229 N.W. 101. But whether this was so depended upon the existence of the employer-employe relationship.

  6. Delaney v. Dan Delaney, Inc.

    36 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 1949)   Cited 6 times

    " Our latest case involving the question at issue is Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co. Inc. 219 Minn. 294, 17 N.W.2d 502. In that case three brothers formed a corporation.

  7. Mahoney v. Nitroform Co.

    36 N.J. Super. 116 (App. Div. 1955)   Cited 6 times

    1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law (1952) § 54.21, p. 788. Recovery of compensation was denied, partly upon the indicated philosophy, in Carville v. A.F. Bornot Co., 288 Pa. 104, 135 A. 652, 655 ( Sup. Ct. 1927); Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co., 219 Minn. 294, 17 N.W.2d 502, 504 ( Sup. Ct. 1945); Manfield Firman Co. v. Manfield, 95 Ind. App. 70, 182 N.E. 539, 541 ( App. Ct. 1932); Bowne v. S.W. Bowne Co., 221 N.Y. 28, 116 N.E. 364, 366 ( Ct. App. 1917); Leigh Aitchison, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, 188 Wis. 218, 205 N.W. 806, 807, 44 A.L.R. 1213 ( Sup. Ct. 1925). In the case last cited, dealing with a manager-owner of a corporate business from which she drew a $5,000 annual salary, the court said: