Panama City Stevedoring Co. v. Padgett
| Decision Date | 10 March 1942 |
| Citation | 6 So.2d 822,149 Fla. 687 |
| Parties | PANAMA CITY STEVEDORING CO., Inc., et al. v. PADGETT. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Ira A. Hutchison judge.
Philip D Beall and Merritt & Brown, all of Pensacola, for appellants.
B. L Solomon, of Marianna, and Weldon G. Starry, of Tallahassee for appellee.
G. T. Whitfield, Jr., of Tallahassee, amicus curiae.
In February, 1939 while in the employment of Panama City Stevedoring Company, William Padgett was accidentally killed. His mother, Mrs. Georgia Padgett, applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, Acts 1935, c. 17481, but her claim was denied by the Deputy Commissioner. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was reviewed and affirmed by the Florida Industrial Commission, but on appeal to the Circuit Court, the latter judgment was reversed. This appeal is from the judgment of the Circuit Court.
It is admitted that the question presented here is whether or not appellee is entitled to the compensation claimed and that such question turns on that of whether or not she was a dependent of William Padgett at the time of his death as contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Law.
The Florida Workmen's Compensation Law does not define who are dependents entitling them to compensation thereunder. The decided current of opinion on this point is to the effect that the question of who are dependents is one of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the case. It is settled law that dependency is not supported by moral or statutory obligation of the child to support the parent. It must be shown that the claimant is from physical or mental incapacity, or lack of means, dependent on the deceased for support, that actual and substantial support must have been received by claimant from deceased, that such support must be shown to have been made regularly with reasonable expectation to be made in the future and that casual gifts at irregular intervals will not support a claim based on dependency.
The record shows that at the time the claim was made and for eighteen years prior thereto, the claimant made her home with a daughter Miss Gladys Padgett, at Marianna, Florida, who was her main dependence for support, that besides the deceased, she had a daughter living in Panama City where she visited about three weeks each year and divided that time between said daughter and the deceased,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floriland Farms, Inc. v. Peterman, 30967
...the question of dependency and who are dependents, it is not necessary to say more than this court has said in Panama City Stevedoring Co. v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So.2d 822, and MacDon Lumber Co. v. Stevenson, Fla.1960, 117 So.2d 487. In the case at bar petitioners contend that we have ......
-
Moorer v. Putnam Lumber Co.
... ... case of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., v ... Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So.2d 822, ... ...
-
Davis v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
... ... And Agrees to Pay ... at Its Home Office in the City of New York ... Five Thousand ... (the face of this ... ...
-
Wise v. E.L. Copeland Builders
...of the industrial accident. See Wright v. Commercial Metals Co., 429 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So.2d 822, 823 (1942), provides the following test for determining dependency: "[R]eliance by the claimant on the employee's cont......