McDonald v. Seay
| Decision Date | 18 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 28126. |
| Citation | 8 S.E.2d 796,62 Ga.App. 519 |
| Parties | MCDONALD v. SEAY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joe M. Ray and Olin Hammock, both of Cuthbert, for plaintiff in error.
W L. Ferguson, of Dawson, and McGee & Elliott, of Columbus for defendant in error.
This is a workmen's compensation case. One of the issues submitted to the Industrial Board was whether or not the employer worked ten or more men regularly at the time of the ac cident. It was shown by the evidence of the employer himself that he had been engaged in operating a sawmill for eighteen months prior to the accident. In answer to the question as to how many men he had regularly employed in this sawmill business, he answered: In operating the mill he sometimes had eight sometimes nine or ten, sometimes more.
On days when he was running the mill and logging at the same time, he had twelve or more. "We didn't do this much on account of the lumber business was bad and we didn't get to do so much work." He logged and sawed at the same time as much as twenty-five or thirty per cent. of the time. The single director found against the award and this finding was reversed by the Board, and compensation awarded, and this finding was approved by the Superior Court.
Under the provisions of Code, § 114-107, an employer does not come within the provisions of the act "that has regularly in service less than 10 employees in the same business within this State." In Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v Hunter, 184 Ga. 196, 200, 190 S.E. 598, 600, it is said "the word 'regularly,' as used in the statute, refers to the question whether the occurrence is or is not in an established mode or plan in the operation of the business, and has no reference to the constancy of the occurrence." The word, "regularly," is not synonymous with constantly or continuously. The work may be intermittent and yet regular. Men may be regularly but not continuously employed. The employer in this case testified that it was his custom or plan of operation to work as many as twelve men thirty per cent. of the time and this time depended on the demand for lumber or business conditions. His established plan or mode of work was to use more than ten men when the business conditions allowed him to sell the output of the mill. The fact that the men were periodically employed, rather than continuously, did not prevent the operation of the act. In the case of Mobile Liners Inc. v. McConnell, 220 Ala. 562, 126 So. 626, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v. Baalmann, Inc.
...or continuously. The work may be intermittent and yet regular. Men may be regularly but not continuously employed.' McDonald v. Seay, 62 Ga.App. 519, 8 S.E.2d 796, 797, Norris v. Koenig, Mo.App., 183 S.W.2d 160. For example, in Sonnenberg v. Berg's Market, 227 Mo.App. 391, 55 S.W.2d 494, 49......
-
Lamensdorf v. Welin
...was a hospital); Studdard v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 79 Ga. App. 467, 54 S.E.2d 280 (1949) (employer was an airline); McDonald v. Seay, 62 Ga. App. 519, 8 S.E.2d 796 (1940) (employer was a sawmill). This case is different, and the Court is unable to rule as a matter of law that Simon, a full-ti......
-
Fowler v. Holloway, 34364
...require comes under the act, regardless of the fact that such men are periodically rather than constantly employed. McDonald v. Seay, 62 Ga.App. 519, 520, 8 S.E.2d 796. Where an employer has had ten or more persons regularly in his employ for more than a month before the death of the employ......
-
United Mine Workers of America, Dist. No. 15 v. Sunlight Coal Co., 17330
...or continuously. The work may be intermittent and yet regular. Men may be regularly but not continuously employed.' McDonald v. Seay, 62 Ga.App. 519, 8 S.E.2d 796, 797, Norris v. Koenig, Mo.App., 183 S.W.2d Similar holding was made in Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Hunter, 184 Ga. 196,......