Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 30966
| Decision Date | 21 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 30966,30966 |
| Citation | 131 So.2d 479 |
| Parties | Gracle Mae PETERMAN, Bobbie Jean Peterman, Ebecca Peterman, Elijah Peterman, Margaret Ree Peterman, Petitioners, v. FLORILAND FARMS, INC., and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Nadler & Tunick, Miami, for petitioners.
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Ronald A. FitzGerald, Fort Lauderdale, Paul E. Speh and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for respondents.
This is a companion case to Floriland Farms, Inc., and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Peterman et al., Fla., 131 So.2d 477. A succinct statement of the facts will be found in the companion case. June 9, 1960, at the instance of the parties, the deputy commissioner held a hearing after which he entered an order, paragraph 16 of which, the only part involved in this appeal, is as follows:
'Claimants contend that employee's weekly wage and the death benefits based thereon should be increased because of the provisions of F.S. 440.14(4) which provides as follows:
"If it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured, and that under normal conditions his wages should be expected to increase during the period of disability, that fact may be considered in arriving at his average weekly wages.'
Petitioners filed cross-application for review of paragraph 16 by the full commission. December 15, 1960, the full commission affirmed the ruling of the deputy commissioner. We are confronted with an appeal by certiorari from the order of the full commission.
The sole point presented for our determination is whether or not the provisions of § 440.14(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as above quoted, are applicable to the determination of the average weekly wages of the deceased minor in this case.
Petitioners offer what they call a 'logic argument,' a 'statutory argument' and a 'law argument,' wherein they come up with the contention that this question requires an affirmative answer. They support this contention with Schneider's Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. 4, g 1177, p. 197, and what they call the landmark case on the point, Kilberg v. Vitch, 171 App.Div. 89, 156 N.Y.S. 971.
It is true that the last cited case affirmed the New York Commission's finding of probable increase in the wages of a deceased minor employee, but Section 14 of New York Workmen's Compensation Act on which the opinion was based is as follows:
'Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the average weekly wages of the injured employee,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Floriland Farms, Inc. v. Peterman, 30967
-
Crane Company v. Richardson Construction Company
...presumption of legislative intention to omit from Florida law that portion of the other state statute not adopted. Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 1961, 131 So.2d 479, 480. Without more, it would appear that Section 608.55 of the Florida Statutes does not apply to a foreign The history o......
-
Kirchner v. Chattanooga Choo Choo
...from specific enumeration."); Crane Co. v. Richardson Constr. Co., 312 F.2d 269, 270 (5th Cir.1963) (citing Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 131 So.2d 479, 480 (Fla.1961)) (Florida Supreme Court held legislature's adoption of only a portion of another state's statute creates strong presum......
-
Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Valez, BQ-252
...the statute is very similar to the corresponding statute found in the New York Workmen's Compensation Act. See Peterman v. Floriland Farms, Inc., 131 So.2d 479 (Fla.1961). Subdivision five of Section 14 of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law provides: "If it be established that the inju......