Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 36510
| Decision Date | 27 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36510,No. 1,36510,1 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 521,95 Ga.App. 235 |
| Parties | OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. W. S. PRUITT |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Since the contract between the claimant and the defendant pipe line company gave the pipe line company the right to control the time and manner of the claimant's performance of the contract, the full board's award of compensation was demanded and the court did not err in affirming such award.
W. S. Pruitt filed a claim for workmen's compensation against Thomson Pipe Line Company, Inc., and its carrier, Old Republic Insurance Company. The deputy director denied compensation on the grounds that at the time of the injury the claimant was not an employee of Thomson Pipe Line Company, Inc., but was an independent contractor. On appeal to the full board, the board reversed the award of the single director and found in favor of the claimant. The superior court on appeal affirmed the award of the full board and the defendants except.
Harry E. Monroe, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Currie & McGhee, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The sole question for determination is whether the full board was authorized to find that the claimant was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The evidence demanded a finding in favor of the claimant. The claimant and Thomson Pipe Line Company, Inc., entered into a contract whereby the claimant was to perform certain construction work and service. The employer and carrier contend that the evidence demanded a finding that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee entitled to compensation. A copy of the contract between the claimant and Thomson Pipe Line Company, Inc. was introduced in evidence without objection and there is no exception to its introduction and consideration. The contract contained the following provision: 'Witnesseth, That the said party of the second part has agreed, and by these presents does agree with the said party of the first part, for the consideration heretofore mentioned, and under the penalty expressed in a Bond bearing even date with these presents and hereunto attached, to furnish all the materials and labor of every description necessary to carry out and complete in a good, firm and substantial manner the construction of the portion of the lateral sewers and outfalls, group No. 2, 1955, as and when directed by the chief of construction of the City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn.
...to be done by either party. The Court concluded that the employee was an independent contractor. But in Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 95 Ga.App. 235, 97 S.E.2d 521 (1957), the Court The only reasonable construction that can be placed on the contract provision that the claimant would "car......
-
Jones v. International Inventors Inc. East
...the right to control, it is immaterial whether the employer in practice exercised such authority. Id.; Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Pruitt, 95 Ga.App. 235, 97 S.E.2d 521 (1957). Although the contract on its face created an independent contractual relationship, there were no provisions proh......
-
Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 39158
...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 S.E.2d 521. Furthermore, where one is employed generally to perform certain services for another, and there is no specific cont......
-
Hodges v. Doctors Hospital
...control over the time and manner of executing the work but whether the employer retained the right to do so. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 95 Ga.App. 235, 236, 97 S.E.2d 521, and cases therein cited. For a listing of the factors to be considered in making a determination, see Moss v. Cen......