{ "id": 1557082, "name": "Valentin VARELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. B. MOUNHO, as employer and John Doe Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Varela v. Mounho", "decision_date": "1978-08-22", "docket_number": "No. 3504", "first_page": "147", "last_page": "151", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 N.M. 147" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "584 P.2d 194" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 N.M. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2828208 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2835112 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2865706 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2835488 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5375796 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2807782 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 N.M. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1559159 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1934, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/38/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5333198 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Mo.App. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 1849832 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/241/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.W.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10148855 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/468/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N.W. 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1928, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Minn. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 265518 ], "year": 1928, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/176/0100-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 499, "char_count": 10298, "ocr_confidence": 0.818, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3047675623907312e-07, "percentile": 0.6229434611824859 }, "sha256": "743953df8ef484850d69f0b1770e17a8368d96bd7b230ae1f0994966caa61e59", "simhash": "1:147d54921daf3f47", "word_count": 1643 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:13.817562+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Valentin VARELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. B. MOUNHO, as employer and John Doe Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff, seeking workmen\u2019s compensation, alleged that while employed at defendant\u2019s dairy and while attempting to steady a cow being milked by another employee, \u201cthe cow bolted, jerking Plaintiff\u201d with the result that plaintiff was injured. No claim is made that plaintiff was not a farm laborer. See Greischar v. St. Mary\u2019s College, 176 Minn. 100, 222 N.W. 525 (1928); Selvey v. Robertson, 468 S.W.2d 212 (Mo.App.1971); Plemmons v. Pevely Dairy Co., 241 Mo.App. 659, 233 S.W.2d 426 (1950). No claim is made that the employer carried workmen\u2019s compensation insurance. See Nix v. Times Enterprises, Inc., 83 N.M. 796, 498 P.2d 683 (Ct.App.1972). The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff, who appeals. The issues involve the applicability of \u00a7 59-10-4(A), N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1, Supp.1975). Plaintiff claims: (1) the statute does not apply to commercial dairies; (2) the statute was repealed by implication; and (3) the statute was enacted in violation of N.M.Const., art. IV, \u00a7 16.\nPlaintiff\u2019s injury is alleged to have occurred in 1977. Plaintiff\u2019s claims involve the workmen\u2019s compensation statute as amended by Laws 1975, ch. 284. As amended, \u00a7 59-10-4(A) reads:\nA. Every employer of four [4] or more workmen shall be subject to the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [59-10-1 to 59-10-37], The Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants or to employers of farm and ranch laborers. Provided, however, that effective January 1, 1978, the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act shall apply to employers of three [3] or more workmen, except to employers of private domestic servants and farm and ranch laborers.\nThis statute clearly provides that the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act \u201cshall not apply to employers ... of farm . laborers.\u201d Plaintiff contends the language should not apply to his claim.\nCommercial Dairies\n1A Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 53.10 (1973) at page 9-106 states: \u201cThe exemption of farm labor is usually explicit, but sometimes takes the form of omission from the list of hazardous employments\u201d.\nOur 1929 workmen\u2019s compensation law excluded agricultural laborers from workmen\u2019s compensation benefits because agricultural pursuits were not included as an ultrahazardous occupation. Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 38 N.M. 241, 31 P.2d 255 (1934). This exclusion continued until the extra hazardous occupation requirement, \u00a7 59-10-10, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1) was repealed by Laws 1975, ch. 284, \u00a7 14. See Graham v. Wheeler, 77 N.M. 455, 423 P.2d 980 (1967); Thomas v. Gardner, 75 N.M. 371, 404 P.2d 853 (1965).\nIn 1937 a provision was added which explicitly excluded the employer of farm labor from the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Laws 1937, ch. 92, \u00a7 2. Prom 1937 until the 1975 amendments, farm labor was excluded from compensation benefits both by the explicit exclusion and by the failure to include agricultural labor as an extra hazardous occupation. Since the 1975 repeal of the extra hazardous requirement, the exclusion of farm labor from compensation benefits is under \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra.\nPlaintiff contends that the employer was engaged in a commercial enterprise; that \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, does not apply to a commercial dairy. Summarized, his argument is: (1) the farm labor exclusion was based on the now outdated view that farm labor was not extra hazardous, a view repudiated by the repeal of \u00a7 59-10-10, supra; (2) the law in other jurisdictions has been changed to provide compensation coverage for farm labor; (3) the farm labor exclusion has been criticized by legal writers, see 1A Larson\u2019s, supra, \u00a7 53.32 and \u00a7 53.33; and (4) New Mexico decisions hint that the farm labor exclusion would not apply where the employer\u2019s activity was a commercial enterprise, see Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., supra, and Thomas v. Gardner, supra.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention does not state New Mexico law. Section 59-10-2, N.M. S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1, Supp.1975) defines employers who come within the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, to include \u201cevery private person, firm or corporation engaged in carrying on for the purpose of business or trade within this state, and which employs four [4] or more workmen, except as provided in section 59-10-4 NMSA 1953\u201d. This wording includes employers engaged in \u201cbusiness or trade\u201d; \u201cbusiness or trade\u201d covers employers engaged in commercial enterprise, including commercial dairies. Section 59-10-2, supra, excepts employers engaged in commercial enterprise from the workmen\u2019s compensation law, as provided in \u00a7 59-10-4, supra. Section 59-10-4(A), supra, provides the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act does not apply to employers of farm labor.\nAssuming the employer was operating a commercial dairy, \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, excludes the employer from the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act to the extent of employment of farm labor. Plaintiff was a farm laborer.\nPlaintiff asserts that unless we hold that commercial dairies do not come within \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, our decision would be contrary to the purposes of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act which is \u201cto provide a humanitarian and economical system of compensation for injured workmen\u201d. Graham v. Wheeler, supra. To achieve that purpose, plaintiff asserts the statute must be liberally construed in his favor. See Schiller v. Southwest Air Rangers, Inc., 87 N.M. 476, 535 P.2d 1327 (1975). Plaintiff also asserts there must be liberal construction in order to obtain fundamental fairness. See Transport Indemnity Company v. Garcia, 89 N.M. 342, 552 P.2d 473 (Ct.App.1976). Our answer is that the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act \u201cmay not be disregarded in the name of liberal construction.\u201d Graham v. Wheeler, supra. The asserted unfairness to farm laborers \u201cis a matter of legislative policy, and we are bound to interpret and apply the law as it is given us.\u201d Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., supra.\nRepeal by Implication\nPlaintiff contends that the failure of \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, to include farm labor as an extra hazardous occupation was based on a legislative presumption that farm labor was not extra hazardous, and that repeal of the extra hazardous requirement in 1975 shows an \u201cobvious legislative intent\u201d to, in effect, provide compensation benefits for farm labor. On this basis, plaintiff asserts that \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, \u201cis irreconcilably in conflict with that legislative intent\u201d and therefore the repeal of \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, must be deemed to have repealed \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, to the extent it excludes farm labor from workmen\u2019s compensation benefits.\nPlaintiff\u2019s reasoning is specious. A statute will not be deemed repealed by implication unless necessary to give effect to an obvious legislative intent. Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 87 N.M. 235, 531 P.2d 1208 (1975). There was no legislative intent that the farm labor exclusion be repealed.\nPlaintiff\u2019s argument bottoms on his contention that the Legislature presumed farm labor was not extra hazardous because not included within \u00a7 59-10-10, supra. No such presumption exists; \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, does not purport to catalog all extra hazardous occupations; rather, the occupations listed in \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, are referred to as the extra hazardous occupations to which the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act applied. The failure to include an occupation within \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, does not permit the conclusion that the Legislature presumed an excluded occupation was not extra hazardous. Section 59-10-10, supra, did no more than state the extra hazardous occupations made subject to the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nEven if we assume a legislative judgment that an occupation not included within \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, was not extra hazardous, plaintiff\u2019s argument still is without merit. Since 1937, the Legislature has provided an exclusion for farm labor independent of any extra hazardous classification. This exclusion is stated in \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra. The last legislative statement of this exclusion was a part of the 1975 legislation. Specifically, \u00a7 59-10-10, supra, was repealed by a section of the same 1975 law which restated the farm labor exclusion.\nNot only is there no \u201cobvious legislative intent\u201d to require compensation benefits for farm labor, the 1975 amendment to \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, affirmatively shows a legislative intent to continue the exclusion of farm labor from compensation benefits. There is no basis for holding \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, was repealed by implication by the repeal of \u00a7 59-10-10, supra.\nConstitutionality\nPlaintiff contends the enactment of the farm labor exclusion appearing in \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, violated N.M.Const., art. IV, \u00a7 16 because \u201c[t]hat subject\u201d is not referred to in the title to the legislation. We are not sure of the particular legislation that is supposed to violate the above constitutional provision \u2014 the 1929 law, the 1937 law, the 1959 law or the 1975 law \u2014 but it makes no difference.\nN.M.Const., art. IV, \u00a7 16 requires the subject of every bill to be clearly expressed in its title. Each of the laws mentioned in the preceding paragraph \u2014 Laws 1929, ch. 113, Laws 1937, ch. 92, Laws 1959, ch. 67, and Laws 1975, ch. 284 \u2014 had the subject of the act clearly expressed in its title. The subject was workmen\u2019s compensation benefits. The title need not set forth the details of the enactment; however, the statutory details must be germane or related to the subject matter expressed in the title. State v. Romero, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1974). The farm labor exclusion was germane to the title of the 1937 law which enacted this exclusion, and germane to the 1959 and 1975 laws that continued the exclusion. The claim that \u00a7 59-10-4(A), supra, was enacted in violation of N.M.Const., art. IV, \u00a7 16 is without merit. The summary judgment is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "David H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Frank H. Allen, Jr. and Ruth M. Schifani, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "584 P.2d 194\nValentin VARELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. B. MOUNHO, as employer and John Doe Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 3504.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 22, 1978.\nWrit of Certiorari Denied Sept. 12, 1978.\nDavid H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nFrank H. Allen, Jr. and Ruth M. Schifani, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0147-01", "first_page_order": 183, "last_page_order": 187 }