finding that worker employed by contractor who was constructing a new building for utility company was performing work that was part of the utility’s trade or business because building was essential to the utility’s business
How later courts described this case
- finding that worker employed by contractor who was constructing a new building for utility company was performing work that was part of the utility’s trade or business because building was essential to the utility’s business
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Zehring v. Wickham, 8 Kan. App. 2d 65 (1982)
Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720, 253 Pac. 219 (1927), and Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 231 P.2d 239 (1951), are distinguishable.
The opinion
Parker, J.
(concurring): After a careful and extended review of our own decisions, as well as those of other jurisdictions, I have become convinced the rule announced in Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720 , 253 Pac. 219 , and Williams v. Cities Service Gas Co., 139 Kan. 166 , 30 P. 2d 97 , is sound and should be followed. For that reason, I concur in the majority opinion as written except in one particular.
I am unable to agree that certain of our decisions on which appellant relies to support his position are in harmony with the views expressed in the two cases to which I have referred or the rule adhered to in the instant case and it seems to me it would clarify the court’s position and be of benefit to the bench and bar of this state if we were to frankly say so. Therefore, insofar as they purport to hold the parties therein involved were not subject to identical provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act then and now (G. S. 1949, 44-503) in force and effect, I would overrule, not attempt to distinguish, our decisions in Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227 , 75 P. 2d 829 ; Truhlicka v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 162 Kan. 535 , 178 P. 2d 252 , and Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271 , 219 P. 2d 673 .
Thiele, Price and Wertz, JJ., join in the foregoing concurring opinion.