Hawaiian Canneries Co. v. Dependents Kali

• Decision Date: 12 March 1959
• Docket Number: NO. 4061.,4061.
• Citation: 43 Haw. 173
• Parties: HAWAIIAN CANNERIES COMPANY, LTD., v. DEPENDENTS OF CLARA KALI, DECEASED, AND INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

43 Haw. 173

HAWAIIAN CANNERIES COMPANY, LTD.,

v.DEPENDENTS OF CLARA KALI, DECEASED, AND INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII.

NO. 4061.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued December 17, 1958.

Decided March 12, 1959.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT FIFTH CIRCUIT, HON. BENJAMIN M. TASHIRO, JUDGE.

Syllabus by the Court

Actual dependency in workmen's compensation cases does not mean dependency of claimant upon the deceased employee for the bare necessities of life. It is established by a showing that the claimant looked to the contribution of the deceased for the maintenance of his accustomed standard of living.

Where a minor child turned over her earnings to her parents and the parents commingled such earnings with other family funds from which the usual household expenses, including support of the child, were paid, the parents were partially dependent on the child.

Under R.L.H. 1945, § 4412, parents are entitled to compensation during the continuation of a condition of actual dependency. There is a continuation of a condition of actual dependency on the part of the parents of a deceased child so long as they are dependent upon the compensation to maintain themselves and their minor children at the standard of living to which they were accustomed at the time of the child's injury. The payment of compensation may be terminated upon proof that the compensation is no longer necessary for the maintenance of the claimants and their minor children at such standard of living.

R.L.H. 1945, § 4419, provides the statutory basis for the determination of average weekly wages. Under this section, average weekly wages are computed by taking into consideration the number of weeks in which work was available during the period of 12 months preceding the injury, as well as the number of weeks actually worked in earning the wages.

R. M. Torkildson and F. W. Rohlfing ( Moore, Torkildson & Rice with them on the briefs) for Hawaiian Canneries Company, Ltd.

James A. King ( Bouslog & Symonds with him on the briefs) for dependents-claimants Robert and Lei Kali.

W. K. Watkins, Jr., Deputy Attorney General (also on the briefs) for Industrial Accident Board of the County of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii.

RICE, C. J., STAINBACK AND MARUMOTO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MARUMOTO, J.

This case is before us on cross appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of the fifth circuit on a claim for death benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Law, R.L.H. 1945, Ch. 77. Claimants are Robert Kali and Lei Kali, parents of Clara Kali. Clara was injured in an industrial accident on September 27, 1955, and died two days later. At the time of the accident, she was an employee of Hawaiian Canneries Company, Ltd. The claim was based on alleged partial dependency of claimants upon Clara. The court ordered the employer to pay to claimants a compensation of $6.75 per week, beginning September 29, 1955, and ending on the 20th anniversary of Clara's birth. Clara was born on July 28, 1936. So, the compensation was payable until July 28, 1956. The award was based on the following determinations: (1) that claimants were partially dependent upon Clara; (2) that claimants' partial dependency continued only during Clara's minority; and (3) that Clara's average weekly wages were $5.46. Although the court found that Clara's average weekly wages were $5.46, it ordered the payment of a weekly compensation of $6.75 because under R.L.H. 1945, § 4411, partially dependent parents are entitled to death benefit payments of 25 per cent of the average weekly wages of the deceased child and under R.L.H. 1945, § 4414, in computing death benefits, the average weekly wages of the deceased employee are considered to be not less than $27.00.

The employer appealed from the first determination. Claimants and Industrial Accident Board of the County of Kauai appealed from the other determinations.

The following facts were established in the circuit court by stipulations and uncontroverted testimony:

Facts relating to Clara's employment. Only the facts relating to Clara's employment during the period of 12 months immediately preceding her injury will be stated. Facts of Clara's employment before that period are not material to this case. During the mentioned period, the only remunerative employment that Clara had was with Hawaiian Canneries. Her counsel so stipulated. Although Robert Kali testified that Clara occasionally did baby sitting for neighbors, there is no evidence that she had any income from such service, and the stipulation controls. Clara worked for Hawaiian Canneries for three months immediately before her death. She earned $283.84, as follows: $126.54 in July, $34.10 in August, and $123.20 in September. She was a seasonal worker. She was first employed in the cannery. Later, after there was no longer any work in the cannery, she was transferred to field work. At the time of the accident, she was employed in field work. She worked 8 hours per day and 5 1/2 days per week. Her wage rate was $1.10 per hour.

Facts relating to claimants' partial dependency on Clara. During the period of 12 months immediately preceding Clara's injury, claimants and their six children, of whom Clara was the oldest, constituted a single family unit. It was stipulated that the living expenses of the family averaged $364 per month. Thus, the annual cost of maintaining the family was $4,368. But the total earnings of the family in the year in question were only $3,777.92. They were earned as follows: Robert, $2,433.64; Lei, $409.56; Clara, $283.84; Janet, $351.07, and Winnifred, $299.81. Janet and Winnifred are Clara's younger sisters. In each month that she had any income, Clara retained approximately $20 for her personal use, and contributed the balance to the family pot.

Facts relating to the employer's employment situation. Hawaiian Canneries is engaged in the business of growing and canning pineapples. It employs regular and seasonal employees in the field, and regular, intermittent, and seasonal employees in the cannery. Regular employees are hired on year-round basis and are expected to work on every scheduled work day. Intermittent employees are hired to work in the cannery during the peak canning season and on other days when the cannery is in operation and also when warehouse work is available. Seasonal employees are hired to work during the peak season. The peak season covers a period of 14 consecutive weeks or less during the summer months. In the cannery, the season begins before July 1. In the field it may start one or two weeks later. Normally, the seasonal employees do not have any other remunerative employment.

Claimants are entitled to death benefit only if they were “actually dependent, wholly or partially, upon the deceased” at the time of Clara's injury. (R.L.H. 1945, § 4412.)

Actual dependency in workmen's compensation cases does not mean dependency of the claimant upon the deceased for the bare necessities of life. It is established by a showing that the claimant looked to the contribution of the deceased for the maintenance of his accustomed standard of living. (2 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, § 63.00; 58 Am. Jur., Workmen's Compensation, § 163; 99 C.J.S., Workmen's Compensation, § 134.)

The evidence in this case shows that claimants depended upon Clara's contribution to provide the living expenses for themselves and their children, at the level of their accustomed standard of living, if not at the level of subsistence. In the absence of any complicating factor, there would not have been any question as to claimants' partial dependency on Clara. A question as to dependency has been raised in this case because the stipulated living expenses of the Kali family included Clara's living expenses other than the sums that she retained for her use out of her earnings.

According to the view taken by the circuit court, Clara's share of the family living expenses exceeded her contribution. The court did not set forth the basis of its conclusion except to state that “on the basis of her earnings, it took more to maintain Clara than the amount she contributed to the family, so how could there be any support and maintenance on the part of Clara Kali if it took more to support her than the amount she was contributing?” It apparently reached such conclusion by dividing the living expenses of the Kali family by 8, the number of members in the family, and comparing the result with Clara's average weekly wages. The stipulated monthly expenses of $364 reduced to weekly basis is $84 and one-eighth of the latter is $10.50. As previously stated, the court determined Clara's average weekly wages to be $5.46.

The court, nevertheless, held that claimants were partially dependent upon Clara on the basis of the statement in Air Castle, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 394 Ill. 62, 67 N.E. (2d) 177, that “A child contributes to the support of his parents, within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, when he contributes a substantial sum to the support of the family, although this sum is less than the actual cost of his support and maintenance where the child is a minor or is in a position to demand legal support, as here, from his parents.” However, it limited the payment of the compensation to the period that Clara would have been a minor had she lived. The court explained the reason for the limitation as follows: “Under the theory upon which the Court decided the case, had Clara Kali been an adult, the Court would have ruled there was no dependency. The Court proceeded on the basis of Clara Kali being at the time an unemancipated minor. Had she been 20 or over, the Court would have ruled otherwise. The Court would have ruled there was no dependency in this case.”

The employer contends that the circuit court erred in determining that claimants were partially dependent upon Clara on the basis of the statement in Air Castle, Inc. v....