American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 05 September 1967
• Docket Number: No. 42886,No. 3,42886,3
• Citation: 116 Ga.App. 255,157 S.E.2d 55
• Parties: AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. James M. DAVIDSON
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 55

157 S.E.2d 55

116 Ga.App. 255

AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. James M. DAVIDSON.

No. 42886.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 5, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a workmen's compensation claim the issue of whether a claimant occupies the status of an employee is usually a question of fact and not of law.

2. The wages upon which to compute the compensation due the claimant must be determined under the provisions of Code Ann. § 114-402.

The claimant, appellee here, filed a workmen's compensation claim against his employer. The majority of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation entered an award in favor of the claimant. The award was affirmed by the superior court and is here for review.

Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, Williston C. White, Atlanta, for appellants.

Frank F. Faulk, Jr., Albany, for appellee.

J. KELLEY QUILLIAN, Judge.

1. The main issue in the claim was whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor. The employer contends that, under the evidence adduced upon the hearing, the claimant was an independent contractor who had contracted to erect the framing of a house which the employer, a general contractor, was constructing. The claimant insists that he was not an independent contractor, and was therefore entitled to benefits under the Act, because the employer had the right to and did in fact exercise control over the time, manner and method of the work which he was performing.

Paragraph 3 of the findings of fact of the board states in part: 'The majority of the board finds that the framing of a house is only a part of the general construction of the project and is no independent contract for a specific thing with a definite beginning and ending. All parts of the construction of a house are in co-operation and in co-ordination one with another.' This was tantamount to a holding that as a matter of law a person who contracts to erect the framing for a house is not an independent contractor. This was an erroneous theory because the question of whether the claimant is an employee is generally a question of fact to be determined from the particular circumstances of the claim which is pending before the board. This is especially true when the issue is whether the claimant is an employee or an independent contractor. 'In claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where the question is whether the injured person, or the person under whom he was working, occupied the relation of an employee or of an independent contractor toward the alleged...