Smith v. Southern Waste Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | 676 |
| Parties | SMITH v. SOUTHERN WASTE PAPER CO. et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, G.S. s 97-1 et seq., for the death of George Bradshaw McPherson.
The Industrial Commission found that the deceased was an employee of defendant Southern Waste Paper Company, and that his injury by accident, resulting in his death, arose out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant.
Upon appeal to the Superior Court, the award of the Industrial Commission was reversed upon the ground that on the facts found and established by the record the deceased was an independent contractor.
Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Wm E. Comer, of Greensboro, for plaintiff.
Armistead W. Sapp, of Greensboro, for defendants.
The plaintiff's appeal presents the question whether, upon the facts shown by the record, and found by the Industrial Commission, the plaintiff's intestate was, with respect to the work in which he was engaged at the time of his fatal injury, an employee of the defendant Waste Paper Company, or an independent contractor. The court below held that he was not an employee, but an independent contractor, and on that ground reversed the award of the Industrial Commission, and denied compensation.
While the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive, the rulings of the Commission are subject to review on questions of law (a) whether the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction (b) whether the findings are supported by the evidence, (c) whether upon the facts established the decision is correct. Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500, 163 S.E. 569; Buchanan v. State Highway & Public Works Comm., 217 N.C. 173, 7 S.E.2d 382; Logan v. Johnson, 218 N.C. 200, 10 S.E.2d 653; Rader v. Queen City Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609.
The generally accepted definition of an independent contractor is that he is one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do a piece of work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the results of his work. Aderholt v. Condon, 189 N.C. 748, 128 S.E. 337; Greer v. Callahan Construction Co., 190 N.C. 632, 130 S.E. 739. In the recent case of Hayes v. Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137 the distinction between an employee entitled to benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act and an independent contractor was discussed and the incidents of those relationships analyzed by Justice Barnhill, with citation of numerous authorities. The principles of law therein stated seem now to be well settled but difficulty frequently arises in the application of these general principles to the particular facts of individual cases.
In the case at bar it appears from the evidence and findings of fact reported by the Industrial Commission that defendant's business was that of handling and processing waste paper, and that the defendant engaged the services of the deceased, who was a machinist or millwright, to construct a metal conveyor belt to be used in defendant's plant, in the course of its business, to convey waste paper to a paper press or baler; that the conveyor, which was 30 feet long and 5 feet wide, was to be constructed from materials obtained from, and on the premises of, the Southern Converting Company, a separate corporation dealing in scrap metal. Defendant's president had formerly been vicepresident of the Converting Company. The deceased had not theretofore done any work for or been employed by the defendant, but had worked for the Converting Company.
As bearing on the question at issue the Industrial Commission reported the testimony of a witness, a brother-in-law of the deceased, to the effect that deceased was working by the hour at $1 an hour, and was employed there five or six weeks before his injury, 'that deceased had no written contract with the Southern Waste Paper Company, and that there was no verbal contract. ' It appeared, however, that this witness was not present when the contract for the construction of the conveyor was made, and that he had seen the deceased at work on the conveyor belt on only one occasion.
The Industrial Commission also included in its report the substance of the testimony of the president of defendant Waste Paper Company to the effect that he made the agreement with the deceased; that he outlined to him what he wanted done by a rough sketch of the plans, length, width and purpose of the conveyor, and worked out the basis on which deceased would take the job; no definite sum was set, but the deceased agreed to do the work for $1 per hour, the defendant to furnish the materials, the work to be done on the yard of the Converting Company. This witness testified that he had no agreement with deceased, nor did he give directions, as to the number of hours a day he should work, when he should start or quit, or when he should do specific pieces of work, or what help, if any, he should employ; that all he was interested in was to have the job done as expeditiously as possible, and that he did not attempt to direct the deceased as to details of the work.
It also appeared from the testimony that the defendant had not had occasion to employ a full time mechanic, and did not keep a social security sheet for the deceased. The method of payment under the agreement was that deceased would send in each week a statement of the number of hours he had worked and the amount he had spent for incidentals which were entered on the books, and checks for his labor and expense, if any, were issued to him each week. Most of the materials purchased by deceased for the job were billed directly to defendant. Deceased worked regularly each week for five eight-hour days and one four-hour day. This continued for five or six weeks. After his death check was sent claimant for $40, marked 'payment in full for labor by George B. McPherson from Dec. 30, 1944, to date of injury. ' The injury occurred 3:15 p. m. Friday January 5, 1945. The work was not finished at the time of his death. While there was no evidence that any instructions as to the work were given deceased while the conveyor was under construction, an employee of defendant testified he made a suggestion about the location of grease cups which was complied with by deceased. Defendant's president also testified he was around where the work was being done but did not recall giving any instructions as to the construction; that he may have talked to...
To continue reading
Request your trial