Kamp v. Disney

While there is considerable controversy concerning the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, and complaint of the harshness of the award, in view of the fact that the employer was not insured, the principal point urged for reversal is that the employer was not obligated to carry compensation insurance because he employed less than four man. The undisputed testimony is that there were four men on the job -- who were all the men employed by Kamp -- actually handling the piano at the time of the accident, but the contention of the employer is that one of them, a Mr. Timmer, was not a regular employee within the meaning of section 288, chapter 97, 35 C.S.A., which provides, inter alia, that the act shall not include persons "whose employment is but casual and not in the usual course of trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer."