Old MacDonald Had A Truck….& Its Driver Falls Under Farm Laborer Exception
Hand it to Joe Andrews for making sure that his colleagues don’t’ overlook the obscure, the infrequent, the otherwise “under the radar” components of the Delaware Workers’ Comp statute. If this author is the “Queen of Case Law”, as some folks like to say, then Joe is the “Wizard of Oz” when it comes to his mastery of the finer points of our statute.
Today’s harvest is the case of Drew Bailey, Sr. v. RNJ Farms, LLC, IAB#1535222 (1/24/24). Succinctly stated, Claimant was a truck driver employed by a farming operation. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident hauling bales of hay from Delaware to North Carolina. Claimant possessed a CDL license and had a background as a trucker. He came under RNJ’s employ when his own truck fell into disrepair. He testified that 90% of his duties consisted of driving. Employer testified that he considered a farmhand to be anyone who works for the farm, as part of the overall farm operation, to include Claimant. Employer agreed that Claimant’s primary job involved hauling hay to mushroom farms.
The Board’s ruling includes a coveted mini-tutorial of the Section 2307(b) Farm Laborer Exception of the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Act. Its analysis includes both Delaware cases and those from other jurisdictions. It was authored by Chief Hearing Officer Baum, which makes it one of those elite “Chris Baum Cherishables”.
Pivotal observations:
Claimant was undeniably employed by a farm.
The majority of Claimant’s work consisted of transporting crops or produce of the farm.
The trucks in question were not ever a separate business of the Employer and were solely for farm use.
Claimant’s employment was integral to the overall operation of Employer’s farm business.
Takeaways:
While the nature of the employer’s business is not controlling, when other factors are ambiguous, the nature of employer’s business can tip the balance.
As the Court noted in Lowe v. Vincent Farms, 2012 WL 1413580 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2012) the term “farm laborer” is not limited to just field work.
Operating machinery or driving trucks does not preclude a finding of farm laborer.
Given this Claimant’s employment is part of the Employer’s business, and is part and parcel of Employer’s operation and output, and the trucks are limited to farming objectives and not subject to any other legal usage, Claimant falls under the 2307(b) Farm Exclusion and is exempted from workers’ compensation coverage.
Plus, one unrelated but similarly important legal reminder: A riding stable does not meet the traditional definition of a farm and a riding instructor is not excluded from workers’ comp coverage as a “farm laborer”. See Irish Hunt Farms v. Stafford, 2000 WL 972656 (Del. Super Ct. Apr. 28, 2000). Inclusion of one of my early cases such as Irish Hunt Farms is yet another reason to cherish this case (as if Chris Baum alone was not enough).
Happy Monday!
Irreverently yours,
Cassandra Faline Roberts
