 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loyevski v. Yevzelman8/22/2000
rtation to respondents was in furtherance of appellant's business.
On the other hand, as the district court noted, there was no testimony on the issue of respondents' contractual right to transportation. Three respondents, Babushkina, Kramarenko, and Komm, learned about the Belle Plaine job through third parties, and there was no evidence that they ever communicated directly with Berkovith. Loyevski communicated directly with Berkovith, but Loyevski's testimony does not show that appellant agreed to provide transportation as a condition of employment. Berkovith told Loyevski only that he did not have to worry about finding the Belle Plaine job site because Berkovith was paying Yevzelman to provide transportation.
Berkovith's statement to Loyevski did not indicate that appellant would provide transportation for the duration of the Belle Plaine job . There was no evidence that Yevzelman had agreed to provide transportation for the duration of the Belle Plaine job or that appellant would have arranged alternate transportation for respondents if Yevzelman or his vehicle became unavailable to provide transportation.
The district court's finding that the evidence failed to establish an understanding by respondents that appellant would provide transportation as a condition of employment is not clearly erroneous. Absent such an understanding, Minn. Stat. ยงรก176.011, subd. 16, does not apply. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
|