Riddle v. Smith
| Decision Date | 16 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 852. |
| Citation | 41 So.2d 288,252 Ala. 369 |
| Parties | RIDDLE v. SMITH. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Curtis Maddox & Johnson, of Jasper, for appellant.
John A. Posey, of Haleyville, and Elliott & Petree, of Jasper for appellee.
Review by certiorari of a judgment in a workman's compensation suit wherein the court denied compensation to the plaintiff on the ground that he was not an employee of the defendant.
On the authority of such cases as Tuscaloosa Veneer Co. v Martin, 233 Ala. 567, 172 So. 608; Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Crossley, 230 Ala. 403, 161 So 536; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. George, 239 Ala. 80, 194 So. 183; DeBardeleben Coal Corp. v. Richards et al., Ala.Sup., 37 So.2d 121, it is argued with some merit by able counsel for petitioner that the evidence was substantial to support a contrary finding to the effect that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant within the meaning of the law in such cases.
But, in this character of review, we are not dealing with the weight of the evidence, but merely whether there was any evidence to sustain the finding and if, on any reasonable view thereof, there is support in the evidence of such conclusion, that finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Majors v. Jackson Lumber Co., 244 Ala. 418, 13 So.2d 885; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 241 Ala. 473, 3 So.2d 46; Warrior Stone & Contracting Co. v. DeFoor, 241 Ala. 227, 2 So.2d 430; Benoit Coal Mining Co. et al. v. Moore et al., 215 Ala. 220, 109 So. 878; Bell v. Tennessee Coal & Iron Co., 240 Ala. 422, 199 So. 813.
So considered, the judgment must be affirmed, since there was evidence adduced on the part of the defendant to sustain the conclusion reached by the trial court.
True, this court is committed to the principle that the factor in determining the relationship in such a case is that of employee or independent contractor is the reserved right of control by the person for whom one is working over the means and agencies by which the work is accomplished or over the means and agencies by which the result is produced, rather than the actual exercise of such control. Tuscaloosa Veneer Co. v. Martin, supra; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. George, supra.
And if by reason of such reserved right of control the workman was such an employee within the meaning of the statute and the work was such that it was reasonably contemplated by the employer that it would be necessary for him to have helpers in the work, the employment of such helpers would not make them servants solely of the main employee, but also an employee of the employer within the meaning of the workmen's compensation law. Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Crossley, supra, 230 Ala. 404, 161 So. 536, and cases cited.
But that was only the tendency of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.E. Adams & Co. v. Harrell
...trial court. If any reasonable view of the evidence supports such conclusions, then the judgment will not be disturbed. Riddle v. Smith, 252 Ala. 369, 41 So.2d 288. The trial court's findings which bear on these issues are as '2. On, to-wit, March 14, 1950 Samuel J. Harrell, deceased, was a......
-
Bass v. Cowikee Mills
...Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 241 Ala. 476, 3 So.2d 46; H. C. Price Co. v. Lee, 249 Ala. 230, 30 So.2d 579; Riddle v. Smith, 252 Ala. 369, 41 So.2d 288; Swift & Co. v. Rolling, 252 Ala. 536, 42 So.2d 6; Hamilton Motor Co. v. Cooner, 254 Ala. 422, 47 So.2d 270; Bullard v. Cullman Heading Co......
-
American Tennis Courts, Inc. v. Hinton
...employment of such helpers would make them employees of American within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Riddle v. Smith, 252 Ala. 369, 41 So.2d 288 (1949). American admits that it knew it would be necessary for Barron to have at least one helper to do the work they had hired ......
-
Thompson Tractor Co. v. Cobb
...within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. See Weeks v. C. L. Dickert Lumber Co., 270 Ala. 713, 121 So.2d 894; Riddle v. Smith, 252 Ala. 369, 41 So.2d 288; W. P. Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Crossley, 230 Ala. 403, 161 So. 536, 538, and cases Southeastern also contends that Count T......