{
  "id": 2807782,
  "name": "Frank L. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Clarence WHEELER, d/b/a Wheeler Ranch, Employer and Insurer, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. Wheeler",
  "decision_date": "1967-02-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8014",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "458",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.M. 455"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "423 P.2d 980"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8501466
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Neb. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        2580717
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/139/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 Mo.App. 1097",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8729875
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo-app/225/1097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Or. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        1981553
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/140/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Or. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        2363740
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/85/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Wyo. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wyo.",
      "case_ids": [
        8513829
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wyo/54/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 P. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Wash. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        1429013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/116/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.Y.S. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 App.Div. 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "A.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        2915710
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ad/180/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 N.M. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1559159
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/38/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841605
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.M. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842006
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/49/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 N.M. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1584710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/56/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841911
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842362
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.M. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2845378
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/65/0283-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.M. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5375796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 A.L.R. 399",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 490,
    "char_count": 6393,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.664,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0679748941282068e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5590505469623904
    },
    "sha256": "f8125b3f3f00a19e27991c5b1369105ee5d2ec43c8fe3615428466e4cd021bc0",
    "simhash": "1:aa13de0738e059dc",
    "word_count": 1022
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MOISE, J., and SPEISS, J., Court of Appeals, concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Frank L. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Clarence WHEELER, d/b/a Wheeler Ranch, Employer and Insurer, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCOMPTON, Justice.\nThe claimant appeals from a judgment denying his claim for workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. On September 14, 1964, the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment while operating a self-propelled agricultural machine known as an \u201censilage cutter.\u201d The cutters and rollers of the machine became clogged with weeds causing the machine to stop cutting. As appellant attempted to kick the weeds from the machine, his foot and ankle were severed from his leg. The trial court found that the employer was a farmer and not engaged in any extra-hazardous occupation. Judgment was entered accordingly and the claipiant appeals.\nThere is no substantial dispute in the evidence. Appellee was rather an extensive farmer and produced ensilage on his own farm for the purpose of feeding cattle in his own feeding operation and also supplied ensilage under contract to other persons in the business of feeding cattle. He farmed 120 acres, usually cutting from 10 to 20 tons of ensilage per acre therefrom annually. In addition to cutting crops of his own raising, appellee from time to time purchased crops of other farmers and cut them in the field for use in his ensilage business. The crop that was being cut at the time of the accident had not been grown by the employer and the ensilage was being sold to other feeders. While claimant was primarily employed to tend the employer\u2019s machinery on the farm, he did the usual farm duties about the premises, such as operating the ensilage cutter when necessary.\nAppellant contends that appellee was engaged in a commercial enterprise separate from his farming operations and, therefore, was not excluded from coverage under the act as an employer of farm laborers pursuant to \u00a7 59-10-4, subd. A, N.M.S.A, 1953. See 140 A.L.R. 399 and 1A Larson, 'Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 53.33. Conceding for the mom\u00e9nt that the employer was engaged in a commercial enterprise and not farming, he failed to show that such enterprise was within the purview of any one of the extra-hazardous occupations enumerated in \u00a7 59-10-10, N.M.S.A. 1953. Thomas v. Gardner, 75 N.M. 371, 404 P.2d 853. See, also, Chapman v. Anison, 65 N.M. 283, 336 P.2d 323; Garrison v. Bonfield, 57 N.M. 533, 260 P.2d 718; Williams v. Cooper, 57 N.M. 373, 258 P.2d 1139; McBee v. Hale, 56 N.M. 53, 239 P.2d 737; Hernandez v. Border Truck Line, 49 N.M. 396, 165 P.2d 120; Rumley v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 40 N.M. 183, 57 P.2d 283; and Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 38 N.M. 241, 31 P.2d 255.\nAppellant, however, argues that ensilage cutting comes within the definition of \u201cmilling,\u201d a statutorily designated extra-hazardous occupation. Section 59-10-12(c)', N.M. S.A.1953, then in effect, reads:\n\u201c \u2019Mill\u2019 means any plant, premises, room or place where machinery is used, any process of machinery, changing, altering, or repairing any article or commodity for sale or otherwise together with the yards and premises which are part of the plant, including elevators, warehouses and bunkers, saw mill, sash factory or other work in the lumber industry.\u201d\nNo case is cited and our research discloses none holding an ensilage cutte'r to be'within the definition of'a \u201cmill,\u201d under similar statutes enumerating extfahazardous occupations. On the other-hand, certain farm machineries have been held, not to be within the statutory definition of \u201cmilling.\u201d In Vincent v. Taylor Bros., 180 App.Div. 818, 168 N.Y.S. 287, it was held that a commercial threshing operation was not within the extra-hazardous occupation of \u201cmilling.\u201d\nIn Barney v. Anderson, 116 Wash. 352, 199 P. 452, the court summarily rejected the contention that a hay-baling machine was within the purview of that state\u2019s compensation act. The Washington statute enumerates and defines hazardous occupations in substantially the same language as our own statute.\nThe Wyoming court also had occasion to discuss the meaning of \u201cfactory,\u201d \u201cworkshop,\u201d and \u201cmill\u201d under a statute similar to our own. In In re Roby, 54 Wyo. 439, 93 P.2d 940, the court stated that the legislature\u2019s minute descriptions of factories, workshops, and mills would exclude hay-baling operations as listed occupations.\nWe note, however, that in Raney v. State Industrial Acc. Commission, 85 Or. 199, 166 P. 523, that court held that an ensilage cutter was within the definition of \u201cfeed-mill.\u2019-\u2019 But the Oregon legislature promptly amended its statute to specifically include the operation of an ensilage cutter when, incidental to farming. Peterson v. State Industrial Acc. Commission, 140 Or. 326, 12 P.2d 564.\n\u25a0We -also notice that under so-called Factory Acts, requiring certain safety equipment in \u201call manufacturing, mechanical and other establishments\u201d or in \u201cplants,\u201d it has been held that ensilage cutters were not within the purview of the acts. Johnson v. Bear, 225 Mo.App. 1097, 40 S.W.2d 481; and Groat v. Clausen, 139 Neb. 689, 298 N.W. 563.\nWhile this court recognizes that the purpose of our workmen\u2019s compensation legislation is to provide a humanitarian and economical system of compensation for injured workmen, and that such legislation should be given a liberal construction in favor of a claimant, still we have said that-the provisions of the act may not be disregarded in the name of liberal construction. Kosmicki v. Aspen Drilling Company, 76 N.M. 234, 414 P.2d 214. The New Mexico cases cited earlier show a reluctance to strain the construction of the statute so as to bring occupations within the legislative enumerated list of extra-hazardous occupations. ,\nPlaving concluded that the finding of the trial court that at the time of the injury appellant was not engaged in any extra-hazardous business or occupation is supported by substantial evidence, it was not error to deny appellant\u2019s requested findings and conclusions to the contrary, The conclusion. reached eliminates a discussion of appellee\u2019s cross-appeal.\nThe judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.\nMOISE, J., and SPEISS, J., Court of Appeals, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COMPTON, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Osborn & Laughlin, Roswell, for appellant.",
      "Keleher & McLeod, Michael L. Keleher, Albuquerque, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "423 P.2d 980\nFrank L. GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Clarence WHEELER, d/b/a Wheeler Ranch, Employer and Insurer, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.\nNo. 8014.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nFeb. 20, 1967.\nOsborn & Laughlin, Roswell, for appellant.\nKeleher & McLeod, Michael L. Keleher, Albuquerque, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 490
}