Thompson v. Braselton Federal Insulating & Bldg. Materials Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1950
• Docket Number: No. 34055,34055
• Citation: Thompson v. Braselton Federal Insulating & Bldg. Materials Co., 223 P.2d 527, 203 Okla. 510 (Okla. 1950)
• Parties: THOMPSON v. BRASELTON FEDERAL INSULATING & BUILDING MATERIALS CO. et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 527

223 P.2d 527

203 Okla. 510

THOMPSON v.BRASELTON FEDERAL INSULATING & BUILDING MATERIALS CO. et al.

No. 34055.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 24, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court

1.This court in reviewing an award of the State Industrial Commission will not accept as conclusive the findings of fact of the State Industrial Commission concerning a jurisdictional question, but on review will weigh the evidence relating thereto and make its own independent findings of fact.

2.An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work.

3.Record examined.Held, that the State Industrial Commission was authorized to find that the claimant was an independent contractor.

John C. Moran, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Looney, Watts, Ross, Looney & Smith, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General, for respondents.

HALLEY, Justice.

Giles Thompson, claimant in the proceeding below, petitioner herein, seeks to vacate an order denying an award entered on a claim filed September 14, 1948.Therein it is stated that on September 6, 1948, claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent, Braselton Federal Insulating and Building Materials Company, hereinafter called Braselton, when he fell from a ladder while repairing a window of a dwelling house.

The cause and extent of the disability is not in dispute.The State Industrial Commission denied an award solely on the ground that the claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee.

Claimant presents the single proposition that the State Industrial Commission erred as a matter of law in holding that he was an independent contractor.In Williams et al. v. Branum et al, 192 Okl. 129, 134 P.2d 352, 353, this court, in considering whether the evidence justified the finding as to independent contractor, stated: 'This court in reviewing an award of the State Industrial Commission will not accept as conclusive the findings of fact of the State Industrial Commission concerning a jurisdictional question, but on review will weigh the evidence relating thereto and make its own independent findings of fact.Briscoe Const. Co. v. Miller, 184 Okl. 136, 85 P.2d 420, andHarley v. Smith, 152 Okl. 56, 3 P.2d 666, to the contrary are expressly overruled.'

The evidence discloses without substantial dispute that claimant was engaged in the roofing of buildings and for this purpose he hired his son and Tom Cox to assist him in placing squares of roofing and siding on a dwelling being repaired by Braselton.He was also to do some painting and repairing of doors and windows.The claimant took jobs of this nature whenever he found them, and entered into an oral agreement regarding his work with Braselton a few days before he completed all but a small portion of siding on Friday before he was injured on Monday.At this time it was discovered that it would be necessary to make certain additional repairs on the windows.Claimant was paid $5 a square for the work done on the roof and $3 a square for the work done on the siding.Claimant was paid for all of the work in three different payments, one for $100, one for $25, and the final payment, after completion of the work, of $75.

There is a dispute as to the method of payment for the work done other than roofing and siding.Claimant states that he was to receive $1.50 per hour.Braselton denies this and states that claimant was to be paid for the work by the job, and states that a short time before the additional work was to be done on the windows claimant contacted Braselton and informed him that the windows would need further repairs, and thereupon Braselton told claimant to do the work and figure up the total and he would pay him for all of the work together.It is admitted that claimant sustained his accidental injury on Monday, September 6, 1948, which was Labor Day.Claimant testified and it is not disputed that Braselton requested him to work on Labor Day so that Braselton's employees could weatherstrip on the following Tuesday.

An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of the work.Producers' Lumber Co. v. Butler, 87 Okl. 172, 209 P. 738;Midland Oil & Gas Co. v. Creel, 89 Okl. 23, 213 P. 852;Moore & Gleason v. Taylor, 97 Okl. 193, 223 P. 611;Southland Cotton Oil Co. et al. v. Pritchett et al., 167 Okl. 6, 27 P.2d 819.

In Southland Cotton Oil Co. et al. v. Pritchett et al., supra, it is...