Boseman v. Pacific Mills

• Decision Date: 09 May 1940
• Docket Number: 15083.
• Citation: 8 S.E.2d 878,193 S.C. 479
• Parties: BOSEMAN v. PACIFIC MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

8 S.E.2d 878

193 S.C. 479

BOSEMAN v. PACIFIC MILLS et al.

No. 15083.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 9, 1940

Nelson Mullins & Grier, of Columbia, for appellants.

C T. Graydon and John Grimball, both of Columbia, for respondent.

CARTER Justice.

This appeal involves two claims for compensation under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, one made by Mrs Clydia Brown Springs on behalf of her infant child James Everette Brown, son and only dependent of M. E. Brown, and the other by Mrs. M. J. Nichols, guardian ad litem for James Melvin Boseman, the son and only dependent of Archie Boseman. M. E. Brown and Archie Boseman were burned to death on April 19, 1939, when for some unknown reason a water tank at the Granby Plant of the Pacific Mills, in Columbia, S. C., on which they were painting, caught fire and exploded. The defendants denied the claims on the grounds that Archie Boseman and M. E. Brown were not employees of the Pacific Mills and were not engaged in any work which was a part of the trade, business or occupation of the mills within the meaning of Section 19 of the Compensation Act, 39 St. at Large, p. 1242.

By consent the two cases were consolidated and heard together, on June 21, 1939, before Commissioner Coleman C. Martin, who held that compensation is due claimants. The South Carolina Industrial Commission, upon defendants' application for review before it, confirmed Commissioner Martin's holding. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Dennis affirmed the award of the full Commission.

Defendants have consented that, as both claims grow out of the same accident and as the same issue is raised on appeal, the opinion of this court in the case of Archie Boseman shall be binding and controlling as to the companion case of M. E. Brown.

The only question for our consideration and decision "is whether the deceased, Archie Boseman, at the time of his death, was performing work which was a part of the trade, business or occupation of the Pacific Mills, which would entitle his dependent to compensation under Section 19 of the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act". Appellants contend that this question must be answered in the negative for the reason that "Archie Boseman was an employee of one Jack Martin, an independent contractor, and was not an employee of Pacific Mills within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Act".

Section 19 of the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, under which the claims are made, is as follows: "Where any person (in this section referred to as 'owner'), undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person (in this section referred to as 'subcontractor') for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the work any compensation under this Act which he would have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him."

On April 3, 1939, the Pacific Mills entered into a contract with one Jack Martin to paint the water tank in question; this contract provided that the mill would supply the materials for the work but that Martin would furnish the "tools ropes and rigging". It also provided that "it is further understood that the undersigned contractor is an independent contractor and is in no sense an employee of Pacific Mills or any of its officers". It, however, contained a postscript that "the above work is all subject to inspection and approval by representatives of Pacific Mills". Jack Boseman and M. E. Brown were employed to assist in the painting of the tank and were so...