The
plaintiff, Minnie Lee Thomas, brought this proceeding before
the Industrial Commission to have an award made to her, as
dependent, because of the death of her son, James Thomas
while in the service of the defendant Gas Company. At the
final hearing before the full Commission an award was made to
the plaintiff, and from the order of the Industrial
Commission the defendants appealed to the Superior Court
where the matter was heard by Judge Harris on June 29, 1940.
From the judgment affirming the award the defendants appealed
to this court.
We
quote from the record certain admissions which narrow the
scope of inquiry on
the hearing before the Commission, and which are effectual
here: "When this case was called for a hearing counsel
agreed that both the plaintiff and defendant employer are
subject to and bound by the provisions of the Act; Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company is the carrier for the defendant
employer; and an average weekly wage of the deceased employee
at the time of his accident resulting in his death was
$14.66; the deceased employee suffered an accident November
2, 1939, arising in the course of and out of his employment
from which injuries resulting from the accident he died, met
his death. The sole question involved at the hearing was the
party or parties to whom compensation should be paid on
account of the death of the said deceased employee."
Upon
that question the pertinent evidence is substantially as
follows: The son, James Thomas, at the time of his death, was
living in a house on East Martin Street in Raleigh, and the
mother made her home with him. She testified:
"I
lived by my boy. He took care of me. He took me to Raleigh
and I lived there from 1936 up to the time of his death.
During the four years or three years and a half I did no work
myself. I didn't have any income during that time.
Shortly before his death I stayed with Mrs. Haywood, who
lived at 200 East Edenton Street. She is an old lady in her
eightieth year, the mother of Mr. Holt Haywood and Mr. Alt
Haywood. She is an invalid. I had been there with her two
months and a half prior to James' death. She paid me
$5.75 a week for that two months and a half. That is all the
income I have had for the last three years. It was my duty to
go there and sleep with her. My daughter-in-law prepared the
meals and fixed them and all I had to do was eat mine and
carry Mrs. Haywood's to her, to her bed. I had not been
able to do any work since the early spring of 1937 when I had
a stroke. I had been under a doctor's care from time to
time since. I had not done any work nor earned any income
other than Mrs. Haywood paid me for the eight weeks, and I
was totally dependent upon my son James for my livelihood. He
supported me all the time.
"She
didn't furnish me breakfast. I got all my meals at home
but sometimes I et (ate) supper with her. I did her laundry
for her--that was the 75 cents. I started doing her laundry
in 1937. I had my nephew, Sam Arthur, with me and my son
James. Out of the money James gave me and the money I earned
the three of us lived. James paid all the bills and the rent.
We paid fifteen dollars a month rent. He paid for all the
groceries. I don't know how much that was. He bought the
groceries and brought them to me. All I had to do was tell
him when I needed it and he brought it. I helped Mrs. Bailey
who lived there nine years ago; haven't been doing it
during the last three years. Mrs. Haywood didn't ask me
to do nothing; she didn't do anything but stay in bed. I
was there to do whatever was necessary, and for that she paid
me $5.00 and in addition paid me seventy-five cents for the
laundry.
"I
am fifty-eight years old. Since 1936, when my husband died
my son had supported me entirely. I did not work during that
period except for this lady for two months prior to my
son's death. During those two months my son bought all my
groceries and paid the house rent. I had my money in the
bank; didn't use any of it for my support. After he died
that was the money I had to fall back on. He bought my
clothes during this period, everything. He paid my house
rent. He didn't support anybody else that I know of; he
didn't have a wife. He had no children. He had never been
married. He didn't support any brothers or sisters. I was
the only one dependent upon him."
Another
son of plaintiff, with his family, lived in one end of the
house, paying the rent on rooms occupied by him. James, (the
deceased), paid the rent on the rooms occupied by himself and
his mother. There was temporarily with her at some times a
grandson, who furnished her no support.
Plaintiff
testified that she had about $600 insurance from her husband
at his death, but that all of it had been spent for bills.
In its
main particulars the testimony of the plaintiff was supported
by a son who occupied rooms in another part of the house, and
there was much evidence from this source that the mother was
entirely dependent upon the deceased son, James Thomas.
Upon
this evidence the Industrial Commission found that the
plaintiff was wholly dependent upon the deceased employee
James Thomas, for support; that since 1936 she has been
physically unable to perform average manual labor; that she
has during that time earned 75 cents per week for washing,
and for two months immediately
previous to his death she had slept in the room with an ill
lady and performed some nominal services for her, receiving a
sum of $5 a week, and that she had saved and placed in the
bank the principal portions of these earnings, but used a
small part for buying minor luxuries she desired to obtain;
and, again, "that specifically the said Minnie Lee
Thomas was wholly dependent upon the deceased James Thomas
for support at the time of his death." There is a
further finding that the deceased had no other dependent with
the exception of Sam Bonaparte, who was partially dependent.
Thereupon, the full...
