American Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tanner
| Decision Date | 21 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 36952,No. 1,36952,1 |
| Citation | 97 Ga.App. 122,101 S.E.2d 875 |
| Parties | AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Mrs. J. C. TANNER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The claimant's husband having died as the result of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, the judge of the superior court was correct in affirming the award of the Workmen's Compensation Board.
Mrs. James C. Tanner filed a claim for compensation benefits resulting from the death of her husband caused by an electrical shock which he received while installing kitchen cabinets, against Paramount Homes, Inc., and its insurance carrier, American Automobile Insurance Company.
On the hearing before a deputy director the evidence disclosed: that the deceased was employed as head of the cabinet shop for the Dan Carmichael Manufacturing Company and during his off time was installing cabinets made in the shop for the defendant; the defendant was purchasing these cabinets from the Carmichael Company prior to the time the deceased began installing them for the defendant; the order blanks contained the specifications for the cabinets and house where they were to be delivered and the desired time of delivery; Jack Calloway, secretary-treasurer of the defendant, Paramount Homes, Inc., testified in part: he and the deceased contracted for the deceased to install some cabinets in several houses for $15 per house; the order blanks specified specifications, time and place of delivery; if he had a job he needed in a hurry he would put 'rush' on the order blank; when he had a 'backlog' of orders he would inform the deceased which of the houses to put the cabinets in next; he told the deceased which houses to install the cabinets in to enable him to meet his schedule; he did not ask the deceased to change a cabinet top; he would have asked the deceased to change the top of a cabinet to another color if a customer had wanted the change; that he would have charged for this change in the cabinet; he would also have asked the deceased to change the type of hinges on the cabinets if a customer had wanted them changed; he did not remember the deceased having to make any changes in the cabinets; the order blank system was the same prior to and after the deceased began putting in the cabinets; he never told the deceased what time of the day or week for him to work; he notified the deceased where to install the cabinets by the invoices.
The claimant testified as to her marital status and dependency.
Bill Gaston testified in part that: he worked for the deceased; he aided the deceased in installing the cabinets; he worked in the afternoons and on Saturdays; he did not work regularly; he only worked for the deceased when he could get off from his regular job; on one occasion someone from the defendant's office led them to the house where they were to install stall the cabinets; no one came around where they were working to give them instructions; they had to change one cabinet top because it was the wrong color; no one except the deceased told him when to work.
Upon the conclusion of the hearing the deputy director found that the deceased was an independent contractor and did not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code, § 114-101 et seq. The claimant appealed to the full board, which reversed the award of the deputy director finding that the deceased was an employee of the defendant, and died as the result of an injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn.
...to change certain work. The Court concluded that the employee was an independent contractor. But in American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tanner, 97 Ga.App. 122, 101 S.E.2d 875 (1958) the Court decided that if the employer has the right to give daily orders to the employee, then the employee is a......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Poole
...as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity with the contract. American Auto Ins. Co. v. Tanner, 97 Ga.App. 122, 123, 101 S.E.2d 875; Banks v. Ellijay Lumber Co., 59 Ga.App. 270, 200 S.E. 480; Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y. v. Windham, 209 Ga. 592,......
-
Cash v. American Sur. Co., 38209
...57 Ga.App. 577, 196 S.E. 210, supra, this is not necessary for him to be classified as an employee.' American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tanner, 97 Ga.App. 122, 101 S.E.2d 875, 877. In the Tanner case an award in favor of the claimant was affirmed although the claimant, as foreman of a company ......
-
OCB Co./Nat. Cable Systems, Inc. v. Wiley
...that the cable company assumed the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work. See American Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tanner, 97 Ga.App. 122, 101 S.E.2d 875 (1958). See also Baird v. Travelers Ins. Co., 98 Ga.App. 882 (1), 107 S.E.2d 579 2. Our affirmance of the award of ben......