Gidney Auto Sales v. Cutchins
| Decision Date | 01 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-30,57-30 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 145 |
| Parties | GIDNEY AUTO SALES, and Exchange Insurance Association, Petitioners, v. Vestues CUTCHINS and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pallot, Cassel & Marks, Miami, for petitioners.
Sams and Anderson, Miami, for Vestues Cutchins.
Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents.
Petitioners invoke certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission in a workmen's compensation matter.
Claimant prevailed before the deputy commissioner, whose other awarding temporary total disability benefits, interest, medical expenses and costs, was affirmed by the commission.
The main problem here, as in the original forum, is whether claimant was employed by the petitioner-partnership, or individually by Louis A. Gidney, one of the partners.
On this question, and on the propriety of the allowance in evidence of Gidney's deposition used in a prior personal injury case by claimant, the deputy commissioner's order recited the following:
'4. The employer and carrier contend that the claimant was not an employee of Gidney Auto Sales, a co-partnership consisting of Louis A. Gidney and his brother, Morris Gidney, but the undersigned does not agree with the contention of the carrier, and finds that the claimant was employed by Gidney Auto Sales through the copartner, for a period of four or five weeks prior to the above referred to accident; that he was paid his regular weekly salary of $100 per week. It was shown that the claimant performed services not only at the premises of Gidney Auto Sales but also on various properties in which one or more of the partners had a substantial interest, and that it was the regular practice of the partners to use their employees in the maintenance and improvement of these properties. Claimant's gasoline was paid for by the partnership, as were the costs of the materials used by him, and that on occasions, a truck or car owned by the partnership was placed at his disposal.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'At the time of said hearing, claimant offered into evidence, testimony previously given under oath by Louis A. Gidney during September, 1955, as a witness in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. International Builders of Fla., Inc.
...and Merchants Bank v. Vocelle, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 92; Lindsey v. Willis, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 422; and, Gidney Auto Sales v. Cutchins, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 145. According to the facts contained in the record on appeal, Stevens was to be paid the sum of Four Thousand, Five Hundred ......
-
Verchick v. Hecht Investments, Ltd.
...Co. v. Glisson, 38 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1949); Berrier v. Associated Indem. Co., 142 Fla. 351, 196 So. 188 (Fla.1940); Gidney Auto Sales v. Cutchins, 97 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). Since Hecht Ltd. and Hecht Inc. are the parties that moved for summary judgment, they bear the burden of proving ......
-
Crawford v. Department of Military Affairs of State of Fla., 81-694
...and control of an employee that is the main test in determining the relationship of employer and employee. Gidney Auto Sales v. Cutchins, 97 So.2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1957). Here, section 250.10(1)(b) indicates that direction and control lie on the state level since it provides that the Adjutan......
-
Wilson v. Sirkin Bldg. Corp., 75--1236
...review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. Kindt, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 840; Gidney Auto Sales v. Cutchins, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 145; Marks v. Insurance Service Bureau, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 450; Mitchell v. Morse Operations, Inc., Fla.App.197......