Raponi v. Consolidation Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1928 |
| Citation | 224 Ky. 167,5 S.W.2d 1043 |
| Parties | RAPONI v. CONSOLIDATION COAL CO. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Letcher County.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Luigui Raponi etc., employee, opposed by the Consolidation Coal Company employer. From a judgment of the circuit court reversing an award of compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Board, the employee appeals. Affirmed.
James & Hobson, of Prestonsburg, and S.E. Bevins, of Louisville, for appellant.
A. J Kirk, of Jenkins, and Edward C. O'Rear, and Allen Prewitt, both of Frankfort, for appellee.
In an application by appellant, Luigui Raponi, before the Kentucky Workmen's Compensation Board, he was awarded compensation against appellee, the Consolidation Coal Company, upon a finding by the board that he was injured in the course of his employment from that company. Appellee filed a petition for review in the Letcher circuit court, where the award of the Compensation Board was reversed, it being there held that he was not the employee of appellee at the time he was injured. He prosecutes this appeal from that judgment.
There is no dispute as to the facts, and on these undisputed facts there is presented the question of law whether appellant was the employee of appellee. The board's award under the facts of this case was a finding of law, and as such may be reviewed by this court. See Diamond Block Coal Co. v. Sparks, 209 Ky. 73, 272 S.W. 31; Bates & Rogers Construction Co. v. Allen, 183 Ky. 815, 210 S.W. 467; Rusch v. Louisville Water Co., 193 Ky. 698, 237 S.W. 389.
The undisputed facts are that appellee, the Consolidation Coal Company, contracted with Charlie Voci and Sam Clarke to excavate a slate dump, agreeing to pay them for so doing so much per cubic yard for the material excavated. Voci and Clarke hired their laborers; and appellee reserved no character of control over their method of doing the work, and had no authority either to employ or discharge the men who performed the labor incident to excavating the slate dump. Appellee had only the right to require that the excavation be of the specified dimensions.
The rule for determining when one is an independent contractor rather than an employee was written and authorities sustaining it cited in this court's recent opinion in Wright et al. v. Wilkins, 222 Ky. 144, 300 S.W. 342. Measured by the rule there declared there can be no question from the undisputed testimony on file herein that Voci and Clarke were independent contractors and that the laborers who performed the labor which they contracted to do were their employees and not the employees of the Consolidation Coal Company that let to them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broadway & Fourth Ave. Realty Co. v. Metcalfe
...Coal Co. v. Vanhoose, 220 Ky. 381, 295 S.W. 464; Wilson Berger Coal Co. v. Brown, 223 Ky. 183, 3 S.W. (2d) 199; Raponi v. Consolidation Coal Co., 224 Ky. 167, 5 S.W. (2d) 1043; Melcroft Coal Co. v. Hicks, 224 Ky. 173, 5 S.W. (2d) 1049. If a legal conclusion of the board is erroneous, it is ......
-
General Refractories Co. v. Mozier
... ... their employment? In Diamond Block Coal Co. v ... Sparks, 209 Ky. 73, 272 S.W. 31, the court thus laid ... down the rule as to who is an ... these people. But, as pointed out in Raponi v ... Consolidation Coal Co., 224 Ky. 167, 5 S.W.2d 1043, ... since this was done by the ... ...
-
Brewer v. Millich
...facts are not disputed, the question of whether appellee was an independent contractor or employee is one of law. Raponi v. Consolidation Coal Co., 224 Ky. 167, 5 S.W.2d 1043; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Petty, 282 Ky. 716, 140 S.W.2d In answering this question, the approach to be used i......
-
Vires v. Dawkins Log & Mill Company
...222 Ky. 144, 300 S.W. 342; Buckhorn Coal & Lumber Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co., 222 Ky. 683, 2 S.W. (2d) 383; Raponi v. Consolidation Coal Co., 224 Ky. 167, 5 S.W. (2d) 1043. Independent contractors are not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts generally, and they cannot claim its benef......