Harding v. State Comp. Comm'r Et At.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7908) |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mrs. Roy G. Harding, who sues on behalf of Hollie Paxton v. State Compensation Commissioner et at. |
1. Master and Servant'
The question of dependency under the Workmen's Compensation Law of West Virginia is not to be determined by ordinary legal or ethical conceptions, but by the classification of dependents made by that law itself.
2. Master and Servant
An infant son (under sixteen years of age) who for a number of years has not received any support whatever from the earnings of his father, is not a dependent under the Workmen's Compensation Law.
Appeal from State Compensation Commissioner.
Proceedings nnder the Workmen's Compensation Law by Mrs. Roy G. Harding, who sues on behalf of Hollie Paxton, alleged dependent, for compensation for the death of Lawrence Paxton, deceased. From a ruling of the State Compensation Commissioner denying compensation, the claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
England & Ritchie, for appellant.
Homer A. Holt, Attorney General, and Kenneth E. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
This case presents the sole question, shall benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law be paid to a child of a deceased workman, when the child, though dependent on the father under general law, was not in fact supported by him at the time of his death.
Lawrence Paxton was killed in 1932 while at work for a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund. He left a son, Hollie, then ten years old. Benefits for Hollie under the compensation statutes were refused by the compensation commissioner.
In 1924, Hollie's mother placed him with a stranger, Mrs. Roy Harding, and promised to pay her $8.00 weekly for his maintenance and support. He has remained with Mrs. Harding ever since. Mrs. Paxton made payments to Mrs. Harding for "a short time" after she took the child, and then failed to pay anything until the fall of 1933. Mrs. Harding never had any dealings whatever directly with Mr. Paxton. Her sister heard him promise Mrs. Paxton to help care for Hollie if he were placed in a private family. Whether Paxton kept that promise in any particular does not appear.
The Paxtons lived apart a number of years before his death, and were seemingly separated at the time Hollie was placed with Mrs. Harding.
Counsel for the claimant contends that a child the age of Hollie is conclusively presumed to be dependent on his father. This contention is not applicable in this case because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orouin v. Ellis C. Snodgrass Co.
...Glaze v. Hart et al, 225 Mo.App. 1205-1211, 36 S.W.2d 684; Sweet v. Sherwood Ice Co., 40 R.I. 203, 100 A. 316; Harding v. State Compensation Com'r, 114 W.Va. 817, 174 S.E. 328; Utah Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 80 Utah 301, 15 P.2d 297, 86 A.L.R. 858; Lloyd-McAlpine L. Co. v. Industri......
-
Johnson v. West Va. Office of The Ins. Comm'r
...legal or ethical conceptions, but by the classification of dependents made by that law itself.” Syl. pt. 1, Harding v. State Compensation Commissioner, 114 W.Va. 817, 174 S.E. 328 (1934). Edwin H. Pancake, Esq., Maroney, Williams, Weaver & Pancake, Charleston, WV, for Appellant.Karin L. Wei......
-
Wilson v. Hill
...presumed to be dependent, but as to all others proof of actual dependency was required. In Harding v. State Compensation Commission, 114 W. Va. 817, 174 S.E. 328, the West Virginia statute specifically required proof of actual dependency in whole or in part for all children of the employee.......
- Simpson v. State Compensation Com'r