Ala-Miss Enterprises, Inc. v. Beasley, ALA-MISS
Decision Date | 15 February 1984 |
Docket Number | ALA-MISS |
Citation | 446 So.2d 644 |
Parties | ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Gene BEASLEY. Civ. 3946. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Augustine Meaher, III and James E. Robertson, Jr. of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, for appellant.
Edward P. Turner, Jr. and Gordon Kevin Howell of Turner, Onderdonk & Kimbrough, Chatom, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
The trial court awarded compensation benefits to Beasley. The trial court based its decision in part on the finding that the relationship of employer/employee existed between Ala-Miss and Beasley at the time of Beasley's injury. Ala-Miss, who through able counsel has favored this court with an excellent brief, appeals and we affirm.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court was justified in finding that certain deductions by Ala-Miss to pay workmen's compensation insurance premiums established an employer/employee relationship between Beasley and Ala-Miss for purposes of compensation coverage.
Viewing the record in light of the standard of review in workmen's compensation cases, the following is revealed. Beasley worked as a "sawman" or woodcutter on a pulpwood truck owned and operated by the Hamiltons. Mr. Hamilton had been hauling wood exclusively to Ala-Miss, except for three or four loads of hardwood, from February 1980, up until Beasley's injury in October 1980. Beasley had been working with the Hamiltons approximately three weeks when a tree fell on him and broke his leg. Beasley's injury demanded considerable medical attention, including surgery.
It is undisputed that the Hamiltons hired Beasley and that they supervised his work. Hamilton did not have a contract with Ala- Miss and Ala-Miss could accept or reject any timber tendered. However, from those loads of wood Ala-Miss did accept, it deducted from the price it paid for every cord a certain amount to pay workmen's compensation insurance premiums.
The trial court further found that Beasley was injured in the course of his employment with Ala-Miss and awarded compensation benefits.
Ala-Miss now appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding that Beasley was its employee for purposes of workmen's compensation law.
In workmen's compensation cases this court looks at the record only to determine if the finding of facts by the trial court is supported by any legal evidence and if the law has been properly applied to the facts. We will not look to the weight of the evidence. American Tennis Courts, Inc., v. Hinton, 378 So.2d 235 (Ala.Civ.App.); cert. denied, 378 So.2d 239 (Ala.1979); Craig v. Decatur Petroleum Haulers, Inc., 340 So.2d 1127 (Ala.Civ.App.1976), cert. denied, 340 So.2d 1130 (Ala.1977).
Also, in reviewing the issues on appeal, an appellate court must keep in mind the principle that the Workmen's Compensation Act should be given a liberal construction to accomplish its beneficent purposes, and all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the employee. American Tennis Courts, Inc. v. Hinton, 378 So.2d 235 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 239 (Ala.1979).
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, along with the applicable law, we cannot say the trial court erred in finding that an employer/employee relationship existed for purposes of workmen's compensation coverage.
Viewing the record with the attendant presumptions, the evidence and the reasonable inference therefrom reveals that on every load of wood Hamilton delivered to Ala-Miss, Ala-Miss deducted a certain amount per cord to pay the premiums for workmen's compensation insurance. This occurred continuously from February 1980 until three days before Beasley's accident. It can be reasonably inferred that the deductions were to provide coverage for Hamilton and his employees. The scale tickets, or receipts, given Hamilton show at the bottom in the same size print as the rest of the document that $1.50 per cord was deducted for "W-C Insurance."
Ala-Miss contends that Beasley and Hamilton were not hauling wood to Ala-Miss on the day Beasley was injured based on the fact that on the day of the accident and the two previous days the Hamilton truck delivered wood to Scott Paper Company.
Be that as it may, there is evidence that Ala-Miss had informed Hamilton that, although it would still take pine, it would not accept any more hardwood; thereafter, Hamilton delivered three loads of hardwood to Scott.
On the day of the accident the owner of the timber being cut told Hamilton that they should clear out the rest of the pine with the understanding that it would be delivered to Ala-Miss, who would accept pine. Scott would not take any pulpwood such as pine at that time....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wessel v. Mapco, Inc.
...to treat McGlynn as its Wyoming employee for coverage, it was bound to the domicile law for immunity. Ala-Miss Enterprises, Inc. v. Beasley, Ala.Civ.App., 446 So.2d 644 (1984). "Here we have evidence of an employer deducting from the worker's pay a fee for workers' compensation insurance ov......
-
Miles v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co.
...the company was in effect the plaintiff's employer because it had elected to treat him as its employee. See Ala-Miss Enterprises, Inc. v. Beasley, 446 So.2d 644 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). However, this court is not at liberty on certiorari to reweigh the significance of such evidence. Rather, we m......
-
Russell v. Drivers Leasing Services, Inc.
...249 S.E.2d 808 (1978); Gulf American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Taylor, 150 Ga.App. 179, 257 S.E.2d 44 (1979); Ala-Miss Enterprises, Inc. v. Beasley, 446 So.2d 644 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); cf. Huffman v. Maryland, 18 Md.App. 703, 308 A.2d 718 (1973) (no estoppel since carrier collected no In the cas......
-
McCraney v. Bigger Pulpwood Co., Inc.
...the trial court's findings of fact and whether, under those facts, the law has been properly applied. Ala-Miss Enterprises, Inc. v. Beasley, 446 So.2d 644 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). We note that the trial court found that Urquhart was an independent contractor. The standard to be applied when maki......