Cross v. Crabtree
Decision Date | 03 December 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 23728,23728 |
Citation | 364 S.W.2d 61 |
Parties | Mary P. CROSS (Claimant), Respondent, v. Kenneth CRABTREE, and American Motorists Insurance Company (Employer and Insurer), Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Herman M. Swafford, Alder & Morrison, Kansas City, for appellants.
James W. Benjamin and Thomas E. Sims, Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County at Kansas City affirming the award of the Industrial Commission of Missouri in favor of claimant-respondent, Mary P. Cross, allowing the maximum death benefits and burial expenses totaling $15,500 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, of which sum only $2,771.43 had accrued at the time the present appeal was taken on June 18, 1962.
Since the amount in actual dispute for jurisdictional purposes is determined at the time an appeal is taken, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Snowbarger v. M. F. A. Central Cooperative, Mo.Sup., 317 S.W.2d 390; Section 477.040 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.
On this appeal only two basic questions are presented--namely, (1) whether there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to sustain the award of the Industrial Commission that decedent was a statutory employee of Kenneth Crabtree; and (2) whether the finding of the Industrial Commission that the decedent's annual earnings were determinable under Section 287.250(3) RSMo 1959, was erroneous.
The Industrial Commission's findings are:
'We find and believe that Cross, Hughes, Davidson, Thompson, et al were joint venturers; that they were subcontractors on the Crabtree job; and that respondent Crabtree was their statutory employer under the provisions of Section 287.040(1), RSMo 1959.
'We further find that Mary P. Cross, widow, was the sole, total dependent of William B. Cross at the time of his death.
Appellants' first contention in substance is that claimant failed to prove either a contractual or statutory relationship between decedent and Kenneth Crabtree in order to support an employment status. Appellants deny there is any evidence sufficient to support a finding that decedent either individually or as a member of the working group had been employed either directly or indirectly by Crabtree to work on the house from which he fell to his death.
Our State Constitution, Article V, section 22, V.A.M.S., requires findings of the Industrial Commission must be supported by 'competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.' Hence, the rule is that the review of a compensation case is of the whole record, including the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the award of the commission, and to determine whether the commission's findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence, and are not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Brown v. Anthony Manufacturing Company, Mo.Sup., en Banc, 311 S.W.2d 23; Snowbarger v. M. F. A. Central Co-Operative, Mo.Sup., 349 S.W.2d 224. It is the duty of the reviewing court to set aside the commission's findings only if they are not so supported or if they are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Williams v. Anderson Air Activities, Mo.App., 319 S.W.2d 61.
What does the whole record disclose to support the commission's finding decedent was employed by Crabtree to help shingle the roof of the house from which he fell? Edward Eugene Davidson testified that he, Gerald Hughes, Hugh Thompson, Rolley, Riddle and the deceased were shingling the roof of the house next to the house Crabtree was building. They had done Crabtree's work before. He came by the job and talked to Gerald Hughes in Davidson's presence and to Davidson. The other mentioned men including decedent were also on the roof working but according to Davidson were apparently not near enough to participate in this conversation. 'He (Crabtree) * * * wanted to know when we could start it, he wanted us to shingle it.' * * * A short time later that day Hugh Thompson and decedent went over to the Crabtree house and started to work on it. The rest of the group that same day finished the house they had been roofing, and the next morning all of them, including decedent, worked on the roofing of the Crabtree house. It was while decedent was shingling the Crabtree house that he fell.
On cross-examination Davidson was asked, Davidson did not know whether Crabtree also spoke directly to decedent about the roofing work or who may have told decedent to work on the Crabtree house.
Gerald Hughes testified that on the day in question Bill (decedent) was closest to Crabtree when he came over to get them to get them to work on his roof. Hughes stated,
Kenneth Crabtree testified that he was a building contractor and had been all his life. He would complete about 14 houses this year, 1901. He has no direct employees and employs subcontractors to shingle his houses. He did not know the specific individuals shingling the roof of his house. He had arranged the shingling by contacting Mr. Hughes more than a week before the accident. The house next door was constructed considerably ahead of his house and there was no roofing work being done next door at any time his house was being built. The roofing next door had already been done. He stated that he (Crabtree) was the general contractor on the house at 3217 Sunrise...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, No. 85456 (Mo. 12/9/2003)
...(Mo. App. 1963); Smith v. American Car & Foundry Division, A. C. F. Industries, Inc., 368 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. App. 1963); Cross v. Crabtree, 364 S.W.2d 61 (Mo. App. 1962); Love v. Land, 356 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. App. 1962); Smith v. Cascade Laundry Co., 335 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. App. 1960); Atterberry v. P......
-
Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection
...156 (Mo. App.1963); Smith v. American Car & Foundry Division, A.C.F. Industries, Inc., 368 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1963); Cross v. Crabtree, 364 S.W.2d 61 (Mo.App.1962); Love v. Land, 356 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App. 1962); Smith v. Cascade Laundry Co., 335 S.W.2d 501 (Mo.App.1960); Atterberry v. Porter ......
-
Martin v. Mid-America Farm Lines, Inc.
...our holdings and inconsistent with the views he advances. 11 His position certainly is not universally acclaimed. In Cross v. Crabtree, 364 S.W.2d 61, 67 (Mo.App.1962), the court held that compensation for death of an employee who limited his hours because he was drawing social security sho......
-
Davis v. Brezner
...record and that we must accept all facts and legitimate inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the award (Cross v. Crabtree, Mo.App., 364 S.W.2d 61, 64; Barton v. Western Fireproofing Co., Mo.App., 326 S.W.2d 344; Mabry v. Tiffany Stand Co., Mo.App., 235 S.W.2d 863), we feel we......