Election Supervisors v. Balser

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Samuel Balser was notified by the ward executive of his party affiliation to go to the office of the Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City and obtain the job of erecting and! taking down polling booths for a primary ¹⁸⁸ election. He reported as directed and was engaged to put together and take down the booths at nineteen polling places. The employer paid at the rate of seventy cents for every booth set up, and a like sum for taking it down, and payment was made after the booths were put together and again when they were taken apart.

There were five booths at every polling place. The Supervisors supplied and delivered the booths where they were to be set up, but the 'bolts to hold the sections of the booths together were obtained at the warehouse of the Supervisors and there instructions were given in the method of putting the booths together. The claimant undertook to furnish the labor and tools. He was not required to- report, nor did he, when the work was begun or finished.

He could begin, stop, or continue work when he chose. While at work he was not under the direction, supervision, and control of the Supervisors or any one acting in their behalf. Furthermore, the contract was not for his personal service but, so long as it was properly and timely done, he could have had the work done by any one. If the Supervisors found that the work was not being done in time nor properly, the work would have been given to another person to do.

The Supervisors obtained their information whether the booths had been erected by reports from the police on the Sunday preceding the election. At the time of the claimant’s undertaking a second man was similarly engaged for the booths of twenty-one other polling places. As two men were required for the labor of erecting the booths, it was suggested, and the claimant and this other man agreed with each other, that they would work together setting up the booths at the forty places. They arranged to meet at the claimant’s home, and thence go to complete jointly their separate undertakings.

While erecting one of the booths, an iron brace fell and hurt 'claimant’s left leg. For this injury he sought compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission disallowed the claim on the ground that he was an independent contractor. On appeal, the court, sitting as a jury, found on the issues submitted that the ¹⁸⁹ claimant was a workman for wages, who was engaged in an extra-hazardous employment, and that he was neither a casual employee nor an independent contractor.

These findings resulted in a reversal of the order of the