Chavis v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 13 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19202,19202 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Earl CHAVIS, Respondent, v. John T. WATKINS, d/b/a Watkins Construction Company and Fidelity & CasualtyCompany, Appellants. |
Fulmer, Berry & Alford, Columbia, for appellants.
J. Wesley Drawdy, Columbia, for respondent.
This workmen's compensation case presents the single issue of whether the claimant, Earl Chavis, was an employee of Watkins Construction Company, a sole proprietorship of John T. Watkins, at the time Chavis was injured. The Industrial Commission, reversing its hearing commissioner, concluded that Chavis was an employee. The circuit Court affirmed. Since the issue is jurisdictional, the Commission's conclusion is subject to judicial review even though supported by evidence. Marlow v. E. L. Jones & Son, Inc., 248 S.C. 568, 151 S.Ed.2d 747 (1966). The burden rests on the appellants to show that the circuit court's decision is against the preponderance of the evidence. Tharpe v. G. E. Moore Co., 254 S.C. 196, 174 S.E.2d 397 (1970).
Appellants first contend that Chavis was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Resolution of this question depends on '(t)he general test * * * of control by the employer. It is not the actual control then exercised, but whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment. 'An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of his work." Bates v. Legette, 239 S.C. 25, 34--35, 121 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1961).
This court, like most, has recognized four factors bearing on the crucial right of control. These are (1) direct evidence of the right to, or exercise of, control, (2) method of payment, (3) furnishing of equipment, and (4) right to fire. Tharpe v. G. E. Moore Co., 254 S.C. 196, 200, 174 S.E.2d 397, 399 (1970); South Carolina Industrial Commission v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 242 S.C. 547, 550, 131 S.E.2d 694, 695 (1963); 1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 44.30--.35 (1967). The record is examined with these factors in mind.
Chavis, a house painter, was injured while helping to renovate a newly purchased parsonage belonging to a Columbia church. Chavis was working there at the instance of Watkins, who was chairman of the church property committee. For two or three years before the injury, Chavis had done painting work from time to time on jobs for which Watkins was the contractor. He was paid on an hourly basis and was authorized to hire others to aid him in painting. The practice was for Chavis to report to Watkins the total hours worked by the painters, including himself, each week. Watkins would issue to Chavis a check for an amount equal to three dollars times the total hours worked. Watkins testified that the going rate for painters was less than three dollars. Inferentially from his testimony, he intended for the overage to compensate Chavis for the use of his truck and some other equipment. He disclaimed any knowledge of the division Chavis made of the weekly paychecks. Chavis testified that he and the other painters received the same hourly pay. Two painters who assisted him on the parsonage testified that after Chavis was injured they completed the job alone, receiving their pay directly from Watkins inferentially, at three dollars per hour.
Chavis and Watkins both testified that Chavis was paid on an hourly basis instead of by the job because, as Watkins put it, In this connection it is significant that, describing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle
...339 S.C. at 182, 528 S.E.2d at 440 (citing Lake v. Reeder Constr. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 498 S.E.2d 650 (Ct.App.1998)); Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 (1971); Crim v. Decorator's Supply, 291 S.C. 193, 352 S.E.2d 520 I. Four or More Persons Regularly Employed Claimant urges that ......
-
Gray v. Club Group, Ltd.
...the burden of the appellant to show that the Circuit Court's decision is against the preponderance of the evidence. Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 (1971); Lake, supra; Crim v. Decorator's Supply, 291 S.C. 193, 352 S.E.2d 520 II. A.P.A. Standard of Review For all non-jurisdic......
-
Faile v. SC Dept. of Juvenile Justice
...if ordered by the court. See id. A probation officer is an employee of DJJ, not the family court. This Court in Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 32, 180 S.E.2d 648, 649 (1971), there are four factors used to determine whether a person is an employee of a particular entity. The factors are: (......
-
FULTON BY FULTON v. Westvaco Corp.
...used by the worker; and (5) Which party has the right to terminate the relationship? Id. 165 S.E.2d at 805; Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648, 649 (1971); Felts v. Richland County, 299 S.C. 214, 383 S.E.2d 261, 263 (Ct.App.1989); Crim v. Decorator's Supply, 291 S.C. 193, 352 S.......