Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., No. 24056

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOORE; CHANDLER, Acting C.J., FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., and WALTER J. BRISTOW, Jr.
Citation314 S.C. 43,443 S.E.2d 803
PartiesMoses KIRKSEY, Employee, Petitioner, v. ASSURANCE TIRE COMPANY, Employer, and South Carolina Insolvency Fund, Carrier, Respondents. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24056
Decision Date02 March 1994

Page 803

443 S.E.2d 803
314 S.C. 43
Moses KIRKSEY, Employee, Petitioner,
v.
ASSURANCE TIRE COMPANY, Employer, and South Carolina
Insolvency Fund, Carrier, Respondents.
No. 24056.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 2, 1994.
Decided April 25, 1994.

Page 804

[314 S.C. 44] C. Ben Bowen and Linda McKenzie both of Bowen, McKenzie & Bowen, Greenville, for appellant.

Hal J. Warlick of Warlick Law Office, Easley, for respondents.

MOORE, Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reported at --- S.C. ----, 428 S.E.2d 721 (Ct.App.1993). We affirm.

FACTS

Petitioner was injured while employed by respondent Assurance Tire Company (Assurance) and sought Workers' Compensation benefits. Respondents denied coverage claiming Assurance employed only three employees and was not subject to the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-150 (1985). Petitioner argues the owner's daughter, Vivian Foster, was the fourth employee. The Single Commissioner awarded benefits finding Foster was an employee under the Act. The Full Commission affirmed. The Circuit Court also affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed.

ISSUE

Was Foster an employee under the Act?

[314 S.C. 45] DISCUSSION

Initially, we address the standard of review to be applied in this case. The Circuit Court applied the substantial evidence standard enunciated in Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). The Court of Appeals stated it could find facts in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence when determining jurisdictional questions. The Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review. Vines v. Champion Bldg. Products, --- S.C. ----, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993).

S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-130 (Supp.1993) provides in pertinent part: "The term 'employee' means every person engaged in an employment under any appointment, contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written ..." (emphasis added). The word "hire" generally connotes payment of some kind. 1B Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation § 47.10 (1993). See also BLACKS 729 (6th Ed.1990). There was no allegation that Foster was being paid in any form. Foster testified that she helped her father because he was in bad financial shape and he had helped her in the past. We find Foster was a gratuitous worker.

Most jurisdictions have held gratuitous workers are not employees under workers' compensation acts. See e.g. Mandala v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 4253.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 14, 2007
    ...Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108, 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct. App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589, 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45, 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg. Prods., 315 S.C. 13, 16, 431 S.E.2d, 585, 586 (1993); Porter v. Labor Depot, 372 S.C.......
  • Gray v. Club Group, Ltd., 3119.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 22, 2000
    ...315 S.C. 13, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993); Lake v. Reeder Construction, at 247, 498 S.E.2d at 653. See also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994) (this Court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining jurisdictional question in Work......
  • Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 3249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 9, 2000
    ...13, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993); Lake v. Reeder Constr. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 498 S.E.2d 650 (Ct.App.1998). See also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994)(this Court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining jurisdictional question i......
  • Porter v. Labor Depot, 4212.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 5, 2007
    ...of evidence. Canady v. Charleston County Sch. Dist., 265 S.C. 21, 25, 216 S.E.2d 755, 757 (1975); see also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994) (holding this court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining a jurisdictional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, No. 4253.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 14, 2007
    ...Cab Co., 343 S.C. 102, 108, 538 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct. App.2000) aff'd 349 S.C. 589, 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45, 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994); Vines v. Champion Bldg. Prods., 315 S.C. 13, 16, 431 S.E.2d, 585, 586 (1993); Porter v. Labor Depot, 372 S.C.......
  • Gray v. Club Group, Ltd., No. 3119.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 22, 2000
    ...315 S.C. 13, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993); Lake v. Reeder Construction, at 247, 498 S.E.2d at 653. See also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994) (this Court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining jurisdictional question in Work......
  • Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., No. 3249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 9, 2000
    ...13, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993); Lake v. Reeder Constr. Co., 330 S.C. 242, 498 S.E.2d 650 (Ct.App.1998). See also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994)(this Court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining jurisdictional question i......
  • Porter v. Labor Depot, No. 4212.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 5, 2007
    ...of evidence. Canady v. Charleston County Sch. Dist., 265 S.C. 21, 25, 216 S.E.2d 755, 757 (1975); see also Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994) (holding this court can find facts in accordance with the preponderance of evidence when determining a jurisdictional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT