Home Acc. Ins. Co v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 14 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20723.,20723. |
| Citation | 42 Ga.App. 648,157 S.E. 245 |
| Parties | HOME ACC. INS. CO. et al. v. DANIELS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Laurens County; R. Earl Camp, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by D. G. Daniels, claimant, opposed by the Home Accident Insurance Company, insurer, and others. Award of Industrial Commission allowing compensation was affirmed by the superior court, and the insurer and others bring error.
Affirmed, with direction.
Brock, Sparks & Kussell, of Macon, for plaintiffs in error.
Lamar Murdaugh and J. K. Whaley, both of McRae, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission within its powers are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive. Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810, 129 S. E. 75.
2. Under the Georgia statute and decisions, the test to be applied, in determining whether the relationship of the parties under a contract for the performance of labor is that of employer and servant, or that of employer and independent contractor, lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Lee, 36 Ga. App. 248(1), 136 S. E. 173.
3. In the instant claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where it appeared that the claimant was engaged in cutting and hauling logs to a sawmill under a contract by which he was paid so much per thousand feet, and paid his own help, and where the claimant testified that the employer deducted a certain percentage of his compensation for insurance, that the employer "would show me what to cut and pick out the pines and show me, " that the employer sent him orders "how to cut logs, " and would "show us in the woods where to go, " and where the evidence indicated that under the contract the employer furnished a portion of the equipment used in the logging operation, and the claimant the remaining portion, the evidence authorized the Industrial Commission to find that the contract gave, or the employer assumed, the right to control the time and manner of executing the work, and that the relationship of employer and servant existed between them.
3. The testimony of the claimant that on an average, after paying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcom v. Sudderth
...The same distinguishing features, and others, make Love Lumber Co. v. Thigpen, 42 Ga.App. 83, 155 S.E. 77; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga.App. 648, 157 S.E. 245 inapplicable to the facts of this Maryland Cas. Co. v. Radney, 37 Ga.App. 286, 288, 139 S.E. 832, supra, is one in which......
-
Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 39158
...that the employer did not exercise this right. Davis v. Starrett Bros., 39 Ga.App. 422, 147 S.E. 530; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga.App. 648, 157 S.E. 245; St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Alexander, 84 Ga.App. 207, 65 S.E.2d 694; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 95 Ga.App. 235, 97......
-
Cash v. American Sur. Co., 38209
...Co. v. Pruitt, 95 Ga.App. 235, 97 S.E.2d 521; Davis v. Starrett Bros., Inc., 39 Ga.App. 422, 427, 147 S.E. 530; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga.App. 648, 157 S.E. 245; St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Alexander, 84 Ga.App. 207, 210, 65 S.E.2d 694. While the deceased did not work regu......
-
Oxford v. Tom Huston Peanut Co., 38454
...Fuel Supply Co., 25 Ga.App. 47, 102 S.E. 543; Mount v. Southern Ry. Co., 42 Ga.App. 546, 550, 156 S.E. 701; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga.App. 648(2), 157 S.E. 245; Irving v. Home Accident Ins. Co., 36 Ga.App. 551, 137 S.E. 105.' Yearwood v. Peabody, 45 Ga.App. 451(2), 164 S.E. 9......