Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston
| Decision Date | 23 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 31977,31977 |
| Citation | 149 So.2d 38 |
| Parties | TONEY BUILDERS, INC., and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. William Ed HUDDLESTON and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rodeney Durrance and Calvin A. Pope of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, for petitioners.
Eugene W. Harris of Mabie Law Offices, Wauchula, for William Ed Huddleston.
Burnis T. Coleman and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission.
Toney Builders, Inc., was engaged in the business of constructing 'shell homes' for land owners. Under its method of operation the corporation would contract with the owner for the construction of a given home then enter into a contract with a carpenter to do the actual building. The corporation would supply all materials and specifications while the carpenter would furnish all labor. Upon completion of the work the corporation would pay the carpenter for the labor outlay and he, after retaining $25, 'off the top' would share the remainder equally with his helper.
Whenever Gibson undertook such a construction he signed the contract with Toney Builders, Inc., purchased all the tools, gave all the orders and made all the decisions. When changes were requested by the owners it was Gibson alone who approved them and he was responsible directly to Toney Builders, Inc., for proper completion of the job.
Gibson was required to carry Workmen's Compensation insurance although Toney Builders, Inc., arranged for it and deducted the cost from amounts payable to Gibson.
In the instant case the claimant served as helper to his father-in-law, Gibson, the carpenter, who was operating under the plan just detailed, and while doing so was injured when he fell and ruptured an intervertebral disc.
These facts pose the question whether the claimant was an employee of an independent contractor, in which event he would be entitled to compensation, or himself a partner or joint adventurer, in which case he would not be entitled to it.
The deputy commissioner decided that claimant was not an employee of Toney Builders or Gibson but a partner or joint adventurer and denied his claim. The Commission took precisely the contrary view. So the dispute comes to this court.
The basic question facing the deputy seems to have been one of mixed fact and law. Nahmod v. Nelson et ux., 147 Fla. 564, 3 So.2d 162.
The petitioner first shallenge the validity of the order of the Full Commission on the ground, in substance, that there was failure to dahere to the essential requirements of law by the substitution of its finding of facts for that of the deputy commissioner which since our decision in U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., 55 So.2d 71, we have repeatedly and consistently held may not de done. In case of dispute in controlling facts the Commission may go no further than to determine whether or not there is competent substantial evidence to support the deputy's conclusion, founded, of course, on the testimony he has chosen to believe. But we think a decision of this controversy depends not on the view of the deputy or of the Full Commission about disputed facts but on the point of law which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilldrup Transfer & Storage of New Smyrna Beach, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec., Div. of Employment, 82-1592
...the legal relationship that the undisputed facts engender. Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla.1966), citing Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, 149 So.2d 38 (Fla.1963). The question presented on appeal is whether the Division correctly concluded that a master-servant, as opposed to an in......
-
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer
...590 (Fla.1982); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 59-60 (Fla.1973); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So.2d 164 (Fla.1972); Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, 149 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla.1963). Third, the trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in refusing to allow FP & L to assert the above affir......
-
Cantor v. Cochran
...Commission substituted its own findings for those of the deputy. We do not so find. This, rather, is a case like Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, Fla.1963, 149 So.2d 38, wherein the decision of the controversy depends not on disputed facts but upon the legal relationship that certain und......