Source or prior law:

L. 1911, ch. 218, § 4; R.S. 1923, 44-503.

Revisor's Note:

Section was amended twice in 1998 session, see also 44-503b.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Case of Whitaker v. Douglas [analyzed below under "Case Annotations" 18] mentioned in 1955-56 survey of act, Albert M. Ross, 5 K.L.R. 347, 349 (1956).

Case of Hoffman v. Cudahy Packing Co. [analyzed below under "Case Annotations" 1 (d) and 30] mentioned in oral discussion, Robert Partridge, 26 J.B.A.K. 401 (1958).

Case of Swift v. Kelso Feed Co. [analyzed below under "Case Annotations" 7 and 9 (c)] mentioned in discussion of section, Robert Partridge, 26 J.B.A.K. 388, 390 (1958).

Survey of law of workmen's compensation, William A. Kelly, 10 K.L.R. 353 (1961).

Survey of contracts, UCCC and UCC, Franklin E. Lynch and Larry Schneider, 15 W.L.J. 324 (1976).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Workers' Compensation," William A. Kelly, 27 K.L.R. 377, 384, 385 (1979).

"What Is a Statutory Employee?" Gary L. Jordan, 5 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 14, 15 (1982).

"Workers' Compensation: Reconsidering the 'Right to Control' as the Exclusive Test for Employment Status," Catherine M. Foster, 23 W.L.J. 379, 388 (1984).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIV, No. 6, Review p. 4 (1991).

"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXI, No. 3, Review Section, 25 (1998).

"New K.S.A. 44-503(g): Has the Immunity Windfall for Statutory Employers Been Curtailed?" Donald W. Vasos and Michael R. Wallace, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 23, No. 6, 14 (2000).

"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 27, No. 3, 25 (2004).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.

Cases through 1973

SCOPE OF COVERAGE

—Purpose (1-5)

1. The purpose of this section is to give employees of a subcontractor a remedy against the principal and to prevent employers from evading liability by contracting with outsiders to do part of the work which is undertaken by the principal.

(a) Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 333, 356 P.2d 872 (1960);

(b) Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 595, 358 P.2d 737 (1961);

(c) Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 204, 231 P.2d 239 (1951);

(d) Hoffman v. Cudahy Packing Co., 161 Kan. 345, 167 P.2d 613 (1946);

(e) Bailey v. Mosby Hotel Co., 160 Kan. 258, 259, 160 P.2d 701 (1945);

(f) Lehman v. Grace Oil Co., 151 Kan. 145, 98 P.2d 430 (1940);

(g) Wells v. Eagle-Picher M. & S. Co., 148 Kan. 794, 800, 85 P.2d 22 (1938);

(h) Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Barton Torpedo Co., 137 Kan. 92, 95, 19 P.2d 739 (1933);

(i) Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720, 722, 253 P. 219 (1927);

(j) Spencer v. Marshall, 107 Kan. 264, 191 P. 468 (1920).

2. Section extends liability to employees who would not normally be considered within the common law definition of an employee; so-called "statutory employees." Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 333, 356 P.2d 872 (1960); Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 595, 358 P.2d 737 (1961).

3. Mentioned; held to have no application to action seeking contribution by one workmen's compensation carrier against another. Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 192 Kan. 233, 236, 387 P.2d 159 (1963).

4. Application and purpose of statute considered; claim against contractor, right to implead subcontractor; right to exercise control over employee. Atwell v. Maxwell Bridge Co., 196 Kan. 219, 220, 221, 222, 227, 409 P.2d 994 (1966).

5. Subsection (a) gives employees of subcontractors remedy against principal in certain cases. Herrera v. Fulton Construction Co., 200 Kan. 468, 470, 436 P.2d 364 (1968).

—Test, employer's business (11-24)

11. When a workman is injured who is an employee of a contractor who is engaged in constructing (or doing) works necessary to operation of principal's trade or business (on premises on which principal had undertaken to execute work), then, such workman and principal are operating under subdivision (a) of this section and principal is liable for compensation.

(a) Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720, Syl., 253 P. 219 (1927);

(b) Primm v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 173 Kan. 443, Syl. 1, 249 P.2d 647 (1952);

(c) Sheahan v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 172 Kan. 399, 241 P.2d 515 (1952);

(d) Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 205, 231 P.2d 239 (1951);

(e) Bailey v. Mosby Hotel Co., 160 Kan. 258, 264, 160 P.2d 701 (1945);

(f) Jennings v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 152 Kan. 469, 473, 105 P.2d 882 (1940);

(g) Wells v. Eagle-Picher M. & S. Co., 148 Kan. 794, 800, 85 P.2d 22 (1938);

(h) Pribbenow v. Meeker, 139 Kan. 325, 326, 327, 31 P.2d 15 (1934);

(i) Williams v. Cities Service Gas Co., 139 Kan. 166, Syl. 3, 172, 30 P.2d 97 (1934);

(j) Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Barton Torpedo Co., 137 Kan. 92, Syl. 1, 19 P.2d 739 (1933);

(k) Leebolt v. Leeper, 128 Kan. 61, 64, 275 P. 1087 (1929).

12. General rule-of-thumb is that the statute covers all situations in which work is accomplished which this particular employer, or employers in a similar business, would ordinarily do through employees.

(a) Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 334, 356 P.2d 872 (1960);

(b) Henderson v. Sutton's Food City, 191 Kan. 145, 148, 379 P.2d 300 (1963);

(c) Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 595, 358 P.2d 737 (1961).

13. Contract for delivery of goods; principal held liable to subcontractor's employee. Swift v. Kelso Feed Co., 161 Kan. 383, 386, 168 P.2d 512 (1946).

14. Trash hauler held independent contractor and his employee not a statutory employee hereunder of person whose trash was being hauled. Henderson v. Sutton's Food City, 191 Kan. 145, 146, 147, 149, 379 P.2d 300 (1963).

15. If claimant's work was an integral part or a reasonable incident of the trade or business of one person who undertook to have the work performed for him by another, then the relationship of principal-contractor existed.

(a) Henderson v. Sutton's Food City, 191 Kan. 145, 147, 379 P.2d 300 (1963);

(b) Coble v. Williams, 177 Kan. 743, 747, 282 P.2d 425 (1955);

(c) Swift v. Kelso Feed Co., 161 Kan. 383, 386, 168 P.2d 512 (1946);

(d) Schroeder v. American Nat'l Bank, 154 Kan. 721, 121 P.2d 186 (1942);

(e) Johnson v. Voss, 152 Kan. 586, 106 P.2d 648 (1940);

(f) Raynes v. Riss & Co., 152 Kan. 383, 103 P.2d 818 (1940).

16. In the final analysis the acid test to be applied is whether the work contracted to be done was a part of employer's trade or business.

(a) Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 206, 231 P.2d 329 (1951);

(b) Primm v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 173 Kan. 443, 445, 249 P.2d 647 (1952);

(c) Sheahan v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 172 Kan. 399, 400, 241 P.2d 515 (1952).

17. Owner of lead and zinc lease letting work of drilling prospect holes held principal. Wells v. Eagle-Picher M. & S. Co., 148 Kan. 794, 800, 801, 85 P.2d 22 (1938).

18. Employee of contractor engaged in work not a necessary incident of principal's trade or business, then, principal and employee are not operating under this section; workman may maintain common law action.

(a) Truhlicka v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 162 Kan. 535, 542, 543, 178 P.2d 252 (1947);

(b) Lehman v. Grace Oil Co., 151 Kan. 145, 153, 98 P.2d 430 (1940);

(c) Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227, 233, 75 P.2d 829 (1938);

(d) Southern Surety Co. v. Parsons, 132 Kan. 355, 357, 295 P. 727 (1931).

19. Contract carrier's employee not employee as subcontractor of malt beverage distributor. Waterbury v. Riss & Company, 169 Kan. 271, 274, 278, 289, 219 P.2d 673 (1950).

20. Claimant not an "employee" under act. Hataway v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 195 Kan. 335, 336, 338, 339, 405 P.2d 350 (1965).

21. Tests for determining if work is part of principal's "trade or business"; application and purpose of statute. Hanna v. CRA, Inc., 196 Kan. 156, 158, 159, 161, 163, 409 P.2d 786 (1966).

22. Plaintiff cleaning storage tanks held statutory employee; within act; remedy exclusive. Coe v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 348 F.2d 1, 2, 3 (1965).

23. Sale and delivery of merchandise not a contractual relationship creating statutory employers and employees for purpose of workmen's compensation. Bendure v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co., 199 Kan. 696, 701, 705, 433 P.2d 558 (1967).

24. Claimant delivering silage to feedlot held not a statutory employee. Hacker v. Brookover Feed Yard, Inc., 202 Kan. 582, 585, 586, 589, 451 P.2d 506 (1969).

—Test, right to control (30-34)

30. The real test whether a person becomes a special employer is whether he has the right to control and direct the particular activity as a consequence of which the injury occurred and not merely whether he exercised direction.

(a) Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 597, 358 P.2d 737 (1961);

(b) Judd v. City of Emporia, 183 Kan. 689, 690, 331 P.2d 316 (1958);

(c) Bright v. Bragg, 175 Kan. 404, 412, 264 P.2d 494 (1953);

(d) Schroeder v. American Nat'l Bank, 154 Kan. 721, 724, 121 P.2d 186 (1942);

(e) Bell v. Hall Lithographing Co., 154 Kan. 660, 665, 121 P.2d 281 (1942);

(f) Davis v. Julian, 152 Kan. 749, 107 P.2d 745 (1940);

(g) Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., 147 Kan. 719, 78 P.2d 868 (1938);

(h) Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227, 75 P.2d 829 (1938);

(i) Weaver v. Shanklin Walnut Co., 131 Kan. 771, Syl. 3, 293 P. 950 (1930);

(j) Nordgren v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 125 Kan. 33, Syl. 4, 262 P. 577 (1928);

(k) Wyant v. Douglas Coal Co., 122 Kan. 469, 470, 252 P. 237 (1927);

(l) Farmer v. Purcell, 109 Kan. 612, 614, 615, 201 P. 66 (1921);

(m) Maughlelle v. Mining Co., 99 Kan. 412, 161 P. 907 (1916).

31. Voluntary acts of workman do not give right to control and direct workman's activities, or amount to conduct sufficient to disclose an agreement. Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 598, 358 P.2d 737 (1961).

32. City street employee loaned to water department operating under act; employee covered. Judd v. City of Emporia, 183 Kan. 689, 690, 331 P.2d 316 (1958).

33. History of section reviewed; subcontractor's employee held special employee of principal. Whitaker v. Douglas, 179 Kan. 64, 69, 292 P.2d 688 (1956).

34. Acidization of salt water disposal well held to be part of principal's "trade or business." Anderson v. Beardmore, 210 Kan. 343, 345, 502 P.2d 799 (1972).

—Test, contract (37-39)

37. The fundamental premise upon which liability is predicated under subsection (a) is the existence of a contract between the two employers. Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 597, 358 P.2d 737 (1961).

38. Liability hereunder predicated on contract; no contract; inapplicable. Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 597, 358 P.2d 737 (1961).

39. Liability under subsection (a) based upon existence of contract; employee of one contractor injured by negligence of another independent contractor of same general contractor not "statutory employee." Houk v. Arrow Drilling Co., 201 Kan. 81, 84, 87, 88, 89, 439 P.2d 146 (1968).

APPLICATION OF TESTS

—Determination (43-47)

43. In order to determine the actual relationship of parties under the act, courts do not regard a single fact as conclusive but will look to all the facts and circumstances involved in a particular case.

(a) Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 335, 356 P.2d 872 (1960);

(b) Bell v. Hall Lithographing Co., 154 Kan. 660, 121 P.2d 281 (1942);

(c) Stapleton v. State Highway Comm., 147 Kan. 419, 76 P.2d 843 (1938).

44. Question whether claimant was a "statutory employee" (and within act) or an "independent contractor" (and not within act) is distinctively a matter of inference; "right of control" test applied.

(a) Shay v. Hill, 133 Kan. 157, 164, Syl. 2, 299 P. 263 (1931);

(b) Henderson v. Sutton's Food City, 191 Kan. 145, 149, 379 P.2d 300 (1963);

(c) Snedden v. Nichols, 181 Kan. 1052, 317 P.2d 448 (1957);

(d) Brownrigg v. Allvine Dairy Co., 317 Kan. 209, 211, 19 P.2d 474 (1933);

(e) McKinstry v. Coal Co., 116 Kan. 192, 225 P. 743 (1924).

45. Where a reasonable doubt exists as to whether an employee of one employer is also the "special employee" of another employer, the question should be submitted to the jury under proper instructions. Lewis v. Confer, 188 Kan. 779, 781, 365 P.2d 1103 (1961); Coleman v. Patti Construction Co., 182 Kan. 53, 318 P.2d 1028 (1957).

46. Issue of who is primarily liable, special employer or general employer is not to be determined in the compensation case, but in independent proceedings. Hobelman v. Krebs Construction Co., 188 Kan. 825, 832, 833, 366 P.2d 270 (1961).

47. Statute to be liberally construed. Eravis v. Koppers Company, 342 F. Supp. 943, 945 (1972).

—Effect on damage action (53-57)

53. Injury incurred; compensable hereunder; no action at common law allowed. Hoffman v. Cudahy Packing Co., 161 Kan. 345, 347, 350, 351, 352, 167 P.2d 613 (1946).

54. Plaintiff's employer held independent contractor; damage action against contractee proper. Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227, 233, 75 P.2d 829 (1938).

55. Defendant was not special employer under subsection (a); action for damages properly brought under K.S.A. 44-504. Gilliland v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 189 Kan. 446, 447, 449, 450, 451, 370 P.2d 78 (1962).

56. In common law action for damages, it is valid defense that plaintiff was statutory employee of defendant and therefor entitled to workmen's compensation as an exclusive remedy. Watson v. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 202 Kan. 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 374 to 378, 450 P.2d 10 (1969).

57. In action for damages from personal injuries, plaintiff's injuries held compensable under status as workman and no action for damages existed. Hickman v. Fairleigh, 459 F.2d 790, 791 (1972).

—Joining parties (63-66)

63. Claimant may not join principal and subcontractor in same action. Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 456, 458, 312 P.2d 598 (1957).

64. Claimant may file his claim against his immediate employer, declaring him to be subcontractor, but he cannot then join the principal contractor in the same action, since he may not recover against both. Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 462, 312 P.2d 598 (1957); Coble v. Williams, 177 Kan. 743, 750, 751, 282 P.2d 425 (1955).

65. General and special employers jointly liable for award to claimant; no authority to fix degree of liability.

(a) Hobelman v. Krebs Construction Co., 188 Kan. 825, 828, 831, 832, 366 P.2d 270 (1961);

(b) Judd v. City of Emporia, 183 Kan. 689, 331 P.2d 316 (1958);

(c) Bright v. Bragg, 175 Kan. 404, Syl. 3 and 4, 264 P.2d 494 (1953);

(d) Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., 147 Kan. 719, Syl. 4, 78 P.2d 868 (1938).

66. Where action against principal, principal may interplead subcontractor; where action against subcontractor, workman cannot interplead principal. Coble v. Williams, 177 Kan. 743, 750, 751, 282 P.2d 425 (1955).

—Primary-secondary liability (72-74)

72. Insurer secondarily liable paying award may recover amount so paid from insurer primarily liable; question for ultimate determination is who is primarily liable. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 186 Kan. 637, 645, 646, 352 P.2d 70 (1960).

73. Claimant was paid some compensation by subcontractor who then went bankrupt; balance due to claimant required to be paid by principal. Flanagan v. Lux, 141 Kan. 88, 90, 40 P.2d 458 (1935).

74. Principal paying subcontractor's employee compensation may recover reimbursement from subcontractor by separate action. Haren v. Elevator Sales & Service Co., 186 Kan. 529, 532, 533, 351 P.2d 29 (1960).

Cases after 1973

75. Construed and applied with K.S.A. 44-306; action to recover wages and penalties; claim within contemplation of former act. McGowen v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 215 Kan. 887, 889, 890, 529 P.2d 97.

76. Employee of subcontractor denied right to maintain tort action against general contractor; exclusive remedy hereunder; contract construed. Storts v. Eby Construction Co., 217 Kan. 34, 37, 41, 535 P.2d 908.

77. Granting summary judgment to defendant in wrongful death action judgment error where factual questions unresolved as to whether employee was statutory employee. Woods v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 220 Kan. 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 553 P.2d 900.

78. No contract covering employment which would support contract-subcontractor relationship. Ellis v. Fairchild, 221 Kan. 702, 703, 706, 707, 711, 712, 713, 562 P.2d 75.

79. Service manager of car dealer authorized to do warranty work was a "statutory employee" of manufacturer under this section. Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1182, 1183.

80. Applied; not required that work being performed by employee of subcontractor be primary business of general contractor. Fugit, Administratrix v. United Beechcraft, Inc., 222 Kan. 312, 314, 315, 316, 564 P.2d 521.

81. Employee entitled to exclusive remedy under Workmen's Compensation Act and precluded suit against the United States under Federal Tort Claims Act. Griffin v. United States, 644 F.2d 846, 848 (1981).

82. To avoid one year statute of limitation, employee must plead cause of action for himself, his employer and workmen's compensation insuror; plaintiff allowed to amend complaint. Baird v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 535 F. Supp. 1371, 1376, 1377 (1981).

83. Subsection (a) applied; employee of independent contractor performing work which is part of principal's trade or business is statutory employee. Robinson v. Flynn's Ferry Service, Inc., 6 Kan. App. 2d 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 633 P.2d 1166 (1981).

84. Applied; employee of subcontractor hired by principal employee to perform service for third party is statutory employee of principal. Harper v. Broadway Mortuary, 6 Kan. App. 2d 763, 764, 634 P.2d 1146 (1981).

85. Defendant was not a statutory employer; plaintiff's remedy was not solely under workers' compensation act; reversed. Zehring v. Wickham, 8 Kan. App. 2d 65, 67, 649 P.2d 1246 (1982).

86. Act applied to injured employee of subcontractor thus barring negligence action; work performed held part of principal's trade or business. Zehring v. Wickham, 232 Kan. 704, 705, 706, 707, 710, 658 P.2d 1004 (1983).

87. Hooking up gas well is an integral part of defendant's business; defendant was statutory employer. Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 233 Kan. 38, 63, 661 P.2d 348 (1983).

88. Where employer brings money suit, worker cannot claim offsets alleged due under act when provisions not utilized. Bethany Medical Center v. Knox, 10 Kan. App. 2d 192, 194, 196, 694 P.2d 1331 (1985).

89. No statutory immunity to subcontractor that negligently inflicts injury on employee of principal contractor. Anderson v. National Carriers, Inc., 10 Kan. App. 2d 203, 206, 207, 695 P.2d 1293 (1985).

90. Person cannot be contractor and employee of himself and be statutory employee. Allen v. Mills, 11 Kan. App. 2d 415, 417, 724 P.2d 143 (1986).

91. Statute covers those who are not immediate employers and prevents employers from evading liability by contracting out; tests stated. Hollingsworth v. Fehrs Equip. Co., 240 Kan. 398, 402, 403, 729 P.2d 1214 (1986).

92. Where subcontractor's employee held as employee of principal, provisions of act apply. Murphy v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 643 F. Supp. 269, 271 (1986).

93. Cited; tests to determine liability of principal contractor for injury to employee of independent contractor examined. Thompson v. Harold Thompson Trucking, 12 Kan. App. 2d 449, 456, 748 P.2d 430 (1987).

94. Impleading and indemnity mechanisms herein require compensation award against closest contractor to decedent able to pay. Quigley v. General Motors Corp., 660 F. Supp. 499, 501 (1987).

95. Claims of estate representative of victim killed by parolee against state correction officials barred by exclusivity provisions of act where victim and officials state coemployees. Beck v. Kansas University Psychiatry Foundation, 671 F. Supp. 1563, 1575, 1576 (1987).

96. Liability of workers compensation fund (K.S.A. 44-567) to electing self-employed handicapped worker determined. Miller v. Miller, 13 Kan. App. 2d 262, 267, 768 P.2d 308 (1989).

97. United States in same position as "statutory employer" under act with regards to claim by employee of contractor managing ammunition dump. Nofsinger v. U.S., 727 F. Supp. 586 (1989).

98. Rights and liabilities between those held jointly liable to claimant as beyond jurisdiction of workers compensation proceeding examined. American States Ins. Co. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 14 Kan. App. 2d 492, 495, 794 P.2d 662 (1990).

99. Government entitled to exert exclusive remedy provision in act as defense to contractor employee's action under federal tort claims act. Matthews v. U.S., 756 F. Supp. 511, 513 (1991).

100. Interplay with K.S.A. 44-532a concerning fund liability examined when employer uninsured and insolvent or whereabouts unknown and compensation due employee. Workers Compensation Fund v. Silicone Distributing, Inc., 248 Kan. 551, 556, 809 P.2d 1199 (1991).

101. Act construed to include subcontractor's injured employee. Rodriquez v. John Russell Constr., 16 Kan. App. 2d 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 826 P.2d 515 (1992).

102. Exclusive remedy defense applied in ruling Kansas workers' compensation law applicable to injuries sustained by employees of federal contractors. Mahaffey v. U.S. 785 F. Supp. 148, 150 (1992).

103. Personal injury negligence action arising in workers compensation setting; independent contractor status, dual-status employee, liability between employees, employer's vicarious liability examined. Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387, 837 P.2d 348 (1992).

104. Where plaintiff barred from tort claim as a matter of law, any settlement of tort suit is patently unreasonable. Murphy v. Silver Creek Oil & Gas, Inc., 17 Kan. App. 2d 213, 214, 217, 837 P.2d 1198 (1992).

105. More than one employer in contractor-subcontractor-employer pyramid may qualify as injured worker's statutory employer. Selle v. The Boeing Co., 17 Kan. App. 2d 543, 545, 840 P.2d 542 (1992).

106. Subcontractor who borrowed employee relieved of liability if injured employee covered by subcontractor's workmen's compensation. Thille v. E.L. Farmer and Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 328, 329, 340 (1992).

107. Personal injury negligence claim in workers compensation setting, effect of remand and settlement agreements examined. Bright v. LSI Corp., 254 Kan. 853, 854, 858, 869 P.2d 686 (1994).

108. Issue of manufacturer's involvement in furnace rebuilding precluded summary judgment on statutory employer exclusivity grounds. Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 903 F. Supp. 1434, 1435 (1995).

109. Enforcement of indemnity contract not barred by exclusive remedy provision of workers compensation act (K.S.A. 44-501 et seq.). Estate of Bryant v. All Temperature Insulation, Inc., 22 Kan. App. 2d 387, 394, 916 P.2d 1294 (1996).

110. Employee working for principal employer may not include wages paid by employer's contractors in determination of act's application under K.S.A. 44-505 (a)(2). Myers v. Indian Creek Woods Townhomes Ass'n, 22 Kan. App. 2d 627, 920 P.2d 472 (1996).

111. SRS assistance recipient participating in work program's wrongful death action dismissed where administrative remedies not exhausted. Gamblian v. City of Parsons, 261 Kan. 541, 545, 931 P.2d 1238 (1997).

112. Self-employed person is not covered by workers compensation act unless valid election is in effect. Aetna Life and Cas. v. Americas Truckway Systems, Inc., 23 Kan. App. 2d 315, 320, 323, 929 P.2d 803 (1997).

113. Exclusive remedy provision of workers compensation act barred injured employee's negligence claim. Kiser v. Building Erection Services, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 1269, 1272 (1997).

114. Statutory employee of subcontractor's claims of wrongful death and survival precluded by workers compensation act exclusive remedy provision. Price v. Western Resources, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1061 (1999).

115. Employee of subcontractor who provided workers compensation benefits to employee may not sue principal contractor in tort for injuries sustained at job site. Robinett v. The Haskell Co., 270 Kan. 95, 12 P.3d 411 (2000).

116. Special education teacher injured while loading students into school vehicle; held not "abnormal work" so as to justify tort action against school district. Wiseman v. U.S.D. No. 348, 30 Kan. App. 2d 617, 44 P.3d 490 (2002).

117. Principal employer's subrogation interest is reduced by the percentage of the fault of the immediate statutory employer. Duarte v. DeBruce Grain, Inc., 276 Kan. 598, 78 P.3d 428 (2003).

118. Fact issue concerning whether defendant's company was special employer for exclusivity provision purposes precluded summary judgment. Cuiska v. Hallmark Hall of Fame Productions, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1171 (2003).

119. Plaintiff was not a "statutory employee" under Hanna, 196 Kan. 156; returned for determination whether plaintiff was statutory employee under "contracting out contracted work" conditions. Wheeler v. Rolling Door Co., 33 Kan. App. 2d 787, 109 P.3d 1255 (2005).

120. Section does not apply to a self-employed subcontractor. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Ill. v. Challenger Fence Co., 34 Kan. App. 2d 276, 119 P.3d 666 (2005).

121. Choice of law case where injury in Kansas but Nebraska subcontractor paid workers compensation; claim against Kansas general contractor barred. Anderson v. Commerce Const. Services, Inc., 531 F.3d 1190, 1193 (2008).

122. Injury to independent contractor's employee, landowner not liable for injury by dangerous condition, exception. Herrell v. National Beef Packing Co., 41 Kan. App. 2d 302, 202 P.3d 691 (2009).

123. Liability cannot be extended to purported general contractor under facts of the case. Trevizo v. El Gaucho Steakhouse, 45 Kan. App. 2d 667, 253 P.3d 786 (2011).

124. Plaintiff's tort action was barred under the Kansas workers compensation act exclusive remedy provisions because defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer and plaintiff was already receiving workers' compensation benefits from his direct employer. Stottlemyre v. Sunflower Elec. Power Corp., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1190 (D. Kan. 2015).