Boseman v. Pac. Mills, No. 15083.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Writing for the Court | CARTER, Justice |
Citation | 8 S.E.2d 878 |
Parties | BOSEMAN. v. PACIFIC MILLS et al. |
Docket Number | No. 15083. |
Decision Date | 09 May 1940 |
8 S.E.2d 878
BOSEMAN.
v.
PACIFIC MILLS et al.
No. 15083.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 9, 1940.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; E. C. Dennis, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by James Melvin Boseman, by his guardian ad litem, Mrs. M. J. Nichols, for the death of Archie Boseman, and by Mrs. Clydia Brown Springs, claimant, on behalf of her infant child James Ever-ette Brown, for the death of M. E. Brown, opposed by the Pacific Mills, employer, and the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurance carrier, wherein the claims were consolidated by consent. From a judgment affirming an award of the Full Commission granting compensation, the employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Affirmed.
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.
[8 S.E.2d 879]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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, 57
...of South Carolina, among others, in Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S.C. 336, 2 S.E.2d 825, and Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878, the Court of Appeals held that the statute granted respondent immunity from the action if the proofs established that the respondent's own ......
-
Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 4253.
...because the activity was an important part of the power company's trade or business. Likewise, in Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878 (1940), we held that when an activity performed by the employees of a subcontractor is necessary, or essential to, or an integral part of, t......
-
Garrison v. Gortler, 46417.
...work, cannot be considered as a casual employee of the defendant within the meaning of the Act.”); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878 (employee of contractor painting water tank of defendant essential for its fire protection held to be an employee in the usual course of de......
-
Garrison v. Gortler, 46417.
...... Act."); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d. 878 (employee of contractor ......
-
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, 57
...of South Carolina, among others, in Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S.C. 336, 2 S.E.2d 825, and Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878, the Court of Appeals held that the statute granted respondent immunity from the action if the proofs established that the respondent's own ......
-
Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 4253.
...because the activity was an important part of the power company's trade or business. Likewise, in Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878 (1940), we held that when an activity performed by the employees of a subcontractor is necessary, or essential to, or an integral part of, t......
-
Garrison v. Gortler, 46417.
...work, cannot be considered as a casual employee of the defendant within the meaning of the Act.”); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 878 (employee of contractor painting water tank of defendant essential for its fire protection held to be an employee in the usual course of de......
-
Garrison v. Gortler, 46417.
...... Act."); Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d. 878 (employee of contractor ......