441 S.E.2d 323 (S.C. 1994), 24011, Miller by Miller v. State Roofing Co.
|Citation:||441 S.E.2d 323, 312 S.C. 452|
|Opinion Judge:||CHANDLER, Acting Chief Justice:|
|Party Name:||Michael MILLER, Deceased, Employee, by Mildred MILLER, Mother, Laurence M. Felder, Felicia M. Felder, and Kristella Hamm, minor children, Claimants, Respondents, v. STATE ROOFING COMPANY, Employer, and U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Carrier, Appellants.|
|Attorney:||R. Lewis Johnson and L. Elaine Mozingo, both of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for appellants. John C. Land, III, of Land, Parker & Reaves, P.A., Manning, for respondents.|
|Case Date:||February 07, 1994|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Heard Dec. 10, 1993.
R. Lewis Johnson and L. Elaine Mozingo, both of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for appellants.
John C. Land, III, of Land, Parker & Reaves, P.A., Manning, for respondents.
[312 S.C. 453] CHANDLER, Acting Chief Justice:
In this Workers' Compensation case, Single Commissioner and Full Commission denied benefits to the beneficiaries of Michael Miller, deceased, (Employee), holding that his drowning death did not arise in the course of his employment for State Roofing Company (Employer). Circuit Court reversed; Employer appeals.
We reverse and reinstate Commission's Order.
Employee, a laborer for State Roofing Company of Sumter, was transported to Augusta, Georgia, on Monday, July 16, 1990, for work on a roofing job at the Naval Reserve Center. While in Augusta, Employee was housed by Employer at Horn's Motor Lodge and was furnished $10 per day food allowance.
On Wednesday, July 18, Employer's roofing crew arrived at the job site at approximately 6:30 a.m. Due to rain, work was discontinued and employees returned to the motel. Several workers were directed back to the job site for inspection of leaks. Employee and another laborer, Walter Moore, remained at the motel where they sat out by the pool. Employee, who could not swim, went into the deep end of the pool and drowned.
Single Commissioner denied Employee's beneficiaries benefits, finding that Employer had no control over his off-duty activities. Full Commission affirmed. Circuit Court reversed, holding that Employee was under the control and custody of Employer at the time of his death.
Were the findings of the Single Commissioner and the Full Commission supported by substantial evidence?
Circuit Court found that Employee was "on-call," and subject to Employer's control, such that his drowning death arose in the course and scope of his employment. Employer contends Circuit Court substituted its view of the evidence for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP