## Facts

- The Village of Weyauwega, through its board, instructed its road and bridge committee “to have the bridge painted and hire some one to paint it.”
- The committee sought bids for the job of removing scale, cleaning, and painting a village bridge.
- John P. Kramer submitted a bid to do the job for a lump sum of $75; the village would furnish the paint and Kramer would furnish the brushes.
- Another person bid $70 on similar terms, but the committee chose Kramer because it considered him more reliable and expected a better job.
- The arrangement was oral; there was no written contract or memorandum.
- Kramer was told to begin painting “whenever he got around to it,” and it was understood he could do the work at his own time and convenience.
- Nothing in the arrangement required Kramer to do the work personally, and nothing prevented him from hiring others to help complete the job.
- The undisputed testimony showed the village exercised no day-to-day supervision or detailed control over how Kramer performed the painting.
- While painting the bridge, Kramer fell, sustained fatal injuries, and died.
- Kramer’s widow, Lois Kramer, sought death benefits under the Wisconsin Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- The Industrial Commission found Kramer was an employee of the village and awarded compensation; the Circuit Court for Dane County affirmed the award.
- The Village of Weyauwega and its insurer, Travelers’ Insurance Company, appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether, for purposes of the Wisconsin Workmen’s Compensation Act, Kramer was the village’s employee at the time of his fatal injury or instead an independent contractor outside the Act’s coverage.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Industrial Commission’s award.
- The court held that Kramer was an independent contractor, not an employee, when he was injured.
- The cause was remanded with instructions to vacate the compensation award.  
- Crownhart, J., dissented.

## Legal Principles

- When the material facts bearing on worker status are undisputed, whether the worker is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of law for the court.
- The primary consideration is whether the hiring party retained the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the work, as opposed to contracting only for a finished result.
- A fixed “job” price, freedom to choose the time of performance, lack of day-to-day supervision, and freedom to hire helpers are factors consistent with independent-contractor status.
- Workers’ compensation coverage under the Act requires an employer–employee relationship; absent that relationship, the Commission may not impose liability on the hirer and its insurer.

## Conclusion

Because the village contracted with Kramer for a completed bridge-painting job at a lump-sum price, did not retain control over the details of the work, and left Kramer free to set his own schedule and use assistants, Kramer was an independent contractor rather than an employee; therefore, his widow was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits from the village or its insurer under the Act.


Village of Weyauwega v. Kramer, 192 N.W. 452 (1923)