## Facts

- Bruce Wendt lived with his family on a 25-acre property where he grew fruit.
- Wendt sold some fruit to commercial outlets and sold the rest from a self-service fruit stand on the property; gross sales in 1980 were about $8,000.
- The farm had shown a profit at times, but was generally not profitable; Wendt had regular full-time employment away from the farm and described the farming activity as a hobby connected to family enjoyment of the property.
- Wendt occasionally hired teenagers to help pick fruit.
- In September 1980, Guy Fincham, a 17-year-old high school student, worked for Wendt for two days picking fruit.
- On October 18, 1980, Wendt hired Fincham again to expand a cold-storage room in a separate building located about 65 feet from the residence.
- The building housed farm machinery, tractors, tools, and a mechanical repair shop, and included cold rooms for storing peaches and apples intended for sale; the Wendts did not store personal vehicles there.
- Fincham worked after school on the remodeling project for about two weeks.
- On November 2, 1980, Fincham fell from a ladder while doing the work and suffered a head injury.
- A referee found Fincham was not an independent contractor, and Wendt did not challenge that finding.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board denied coverage, concluding Fincham was a nonsubject worker under the “householder exemption” in ORS 656.027(2) for work performed “in or about the private home,” reasoning that Wendt’s farming was a hobby rather than a business and Fincham was not hired as a general farm laborer.
- Fincham sought judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Fincham’s remodeling work in a cold-storage room within a farm outbuilding used to store equipment and fruit for sale was work “in or about the private home” under ORS 656.027(2), making him a nonsubject worker excluded from workers’ compensation coverage.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s order.
- The court held the ORS 656.027(2) householder exemption did not apply because the remodeling was not performed “in or about the private home” as the statute uses that phrase.
- The court concluded Fincham was a subject worker entitled to workers’ compensation coverage.

## Legal Principles

- ORS 656.027 begins with broad workers’ compensation coverage; exceptions in ORS 656.027 are construed narrowly.
- The householder exemption in ORS 656.027(2) requires more than the type of task (gardening, maintenance, repair, remodeling, or similar work); the work must also be performed “in or about the private home” of the employer.
- Whether a structure is “in or about the private home” depends on its character and use, not simply its distance from the residence.
- A building used for farm operations—such as housing farm equipment, a repair shop, and cold rooms for storing fruit intended for sale—has a business-related character for purposes of ORS 656.027(2), even if the owner views the activity as a hobby or earns little profit from it.
- The employer’s “hobby” label and the farm’s lack of consistent profitability do not control application of the exemption when the work is connected to premises used to support sales activity.

## Conclusion

Because Fincham was injured while remodeling a cold-storage room in an outbuilding used to support fruit sales and farm operations—rather than a space used for ordinary domestic living—the work was not “in or about the private home” under ORS 656.027(2), and the Court of Appeals reversed the Board and treated Fincham as a covered subject worker.


Fincham v. Wendt, 651 P.2d 159, 59 Or. App. 416 (1982)