Fincham v. Wendt
Oregon Court of Appeals
651 P.2d 159, 59 Or. App. 416 (1982)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Bruce Wendt (defendant) and his family lived on a 25-acre hobby farm growing fruit. Wendt sold some of the fruit to commercial businesses and the rest from a self-service fruit stand. Although the farm had made a profit in the past, the farm generally did not make a profit. Wendt’s primary employment was off the farm. On occasion, Wendt hired teenagers to help pick the fruit. One of those teenagers, Guy Fincham (plaintiff), was injured when he fell from a ladder in Wendt’s cold-storage room. The cold-storage room was located 65 feet from Wendt’s residence and was used to store tractors, tools, farm equipment, and fruit for sale. None of the Wendts’ personal vehicles were stored in the building. Fincham filed a workers’-compensation claim. Wendt argued that Fincham’s claim was barred by an Oregon statute creating a householder exemption to workers’ compensation. The exemption excluded workers’-compensation coverage of workers employed to do gardening, maintenance, repair, or similar work in the private home of the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed, finding that the householder exemption applied because the farm was generally unprofitable and not the primary source of Wendt’s income. Fincham appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Joseph, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
