2020 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 52 - Workers' Compensation
Article 1 - Workers' Compensation
Section 52-1-23 - Contractor becoming employer in casual employment.

For purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act, where any employer procures any work to be done wholly or in part for him by a contractor where the work so procured to be done is casual employment as to such employer, then such contractor shall become the employer.

History: 1953 Comp., § 59-10-12.16, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 295, § 16; 1989, ch. 263, § 17.

In determining workman's (worker's) status, the right of control is the test. If he has the right to control the work, he is an independent contractor; if not, he is an employee. Bailey v. Farr, 1959-NMSC-071, 66 N.M. 162, 344 P.2d 173 (decided under former law).

Chief consideration which determines one to be independent contractor is the fact that the employer has no right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for. Shipman v. Macco Corp., 1964-NMSC-091, 74 N.M. 174, 392 P.2d 9 (decided under former law).

Liability of general contractor to employees of subcontractors performing construction or other work on the premises is founded in part on the assumption that the owner has placed the general contractor in physical control of the job site; by virtue of this control, the general contractor is burdened with a duty similar to that owed by the landowner to business invitees, to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. DeArman v. Popps, 1965-NMSC-026, 75 N.M. 39, 400 P.2d 215.

General contractor not liable absent control over location. — Absent control over the job location or direction of the manner in which the delegated tasks are carried out, the general contractor is not liable for injuries to employees of the subcontractor resulting from either the condition of the premises or the manner in which the work is performed. DeArman v. Popps, 1965-NMSC-026, 75 N.M. 39, 400 P.2d 215.

Claimant as employee of contractor not contractee. — Where claimant at all times was paid, employed and subject to discharge by defendant, defendant was hired to do one specific job, and defendant had its own independence of means and methods, subject only to general supervision of the desired results, there can be no question that plaintiff was an employee of defendant and not of contractee. DeArman v. Popps, 1965-NMSC-026, 75 N.M. 39, 400 P.2d 215.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation §§ 71, 121 to 125, 133, 167, 207, 490.

99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 69, 70, 90 to 111.