Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 5--5203
| Citation | 248 Ark. 465,452 S.W.2d 629 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5203,5--5203 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Parties | Mrs. Wallace VOSS, widow of Wallace Voss, deceased, Appellant, v. WARD'S PULPWOOD YARD and American Mutual Lia. Ins. Co., Appellees. |
McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, by Silas H. Brewer, Jr., Little Rock, for appellant.
Smith, Williams Friday & Bowen, by William H. Sutton and Frederick S. Ursery, Little Rock, for appellees.
In this workmen's compensation case the only issue is whether the deceased was an employee of Ward's Pulpwood Yard or an independent contractor at the time of his death. The referee conducted a hearing and dismissed appellant's claim on the basis that the decedent was an independent contractor and not Ward's employee. The dismissal of the claim was affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Commission and by the circuit court from which comes this appeal.
Appellant first contends for reversal that the circuit court erred in affirming the commission's dismissal of this claim on the ground that the deceased was not Ward's employee. We review the evidence to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the commission, inasmuch as we are committed to the rule that the findings of the commission, like that of a jury, will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence to support its action. Herman Wilson Lbr. Co., et al. v. Lester Hughes, 245 Ark. 168, 431 S.W.2d 487 (1968).
Appellee Ward had a written contract with International Paper Company to cut and haul timber to its mill from a tract of land owned by the paper company. By this contract Ward was to cut and haul all of the merchantable pine timber that measured four inches or larger in diameter. Appellee Ward entered into an oral contract with Wallace Voss to perform Ward's contract obligations to the paper company. It was agreed that Ward would pay Voss a certain sum of money for each cord of wood he cut and hauled from the paper company's land to the mill. Mr. Voss suffered a fatal heart attack when he and his helper attempted to free Voss' loaded truck which had become 'stuck' or mired in the woods as they were hauling a load to the mill. Voss, the decedent, owned all the equipment, including saws and truck, necessary to perform his contract with Ward. He had two employees which he hired, controlled, and paid per load by the week. Voss had worked primarily for Ward for about three years. During this time he also hauled timber for others. Sometimes Voss himself would buy timber and sell it to Ward, as would other haulers. There was no requirement that Voss work any particular time. The cutting, loading, and hauling of the pine timber were entirely within the discretion of Voss, except that Ward would occasionally examine the cutting operation to determine if the size of the logs being cut met the terms of the agreement. Ward made no deductions of any kind whenever he paid Voss.
We must agree with the appellees that there is substantial evidence to support the commission's finding that Mr. Voss, the deceased, was not an employee of appellee Ward. Lockeby v. Ozan Lbr. Co., 219 Ark. 154, 242 S.W.2d 115 (1951); Marceline Pearson et al. v. Lake Lawrence Pulpwood Co. et al. (Dec. 8, 1969) Ark., 447 S.W.2d 661. Nor can we agree with the appellant that Hale v. Mansfield Lbr. Co., 237 Ark. 854, 376 S.W.2d 670 (1964), is applicable. In that case the company agreed to pay workmen's compensation insurance premiums upon the claimant as a part of his remuneration. No such agreement exists in the case at bar. Neither can be agree with the appellant that Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1306 (Repl.1960) is applicable. That statute provides that the prime contractor shall be liable for compensation to the employees of a sub-contractor when the sub-contractor fails to secure the required workmen's compensation insurance.
The appellant next contends that the appellees are estopped from defending this claim upon the basis that Mr. Voss was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Peabody Testing Service
...Workers International Union, 246 Ark. 1158, 441 S.W.2d 475; Brooks v. Wage, 242 Ark. 486, 414 S.W.2d 100. See also, Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 248 Ark. 465, 452 S.W.2d 629. The claimant, Shirley Clark, is the widow of William Robert Clark, who was 38 years of age when he died on July 19,......
-
Johnson Timber Corp. v. Sturdivant, 87-163
...relationship existed. See also Crossett Lumber Company v. McCain, 205 Ark. 631, 170 S.W.2d 64 (1943), and Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 248 Ark. 465, 452 S.W.2d 629 (1970). One can read into the facts presented and speculate, but based upon the entire record and the actual facts presented t......
-
International Paper Co. v. Tidwell
...the findings of the commission are binding upon the courts if there is any substantial evidentiary support. Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 248 Ark. 465, 452 S.W.2d 629. We must accept that view of the facts which is most favorable to the commission's findings. Albert Pike Hotel v. Tratner, 2......
-
Arkansas Dept. of Health v. Williams
...1 (1993). In a claim for benefits, a claimant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Voss v. Ward's Pulpwood Yard, 248 Ark. 465, 452 S.W.2d 629 (1970). In its opinion, the Commission discussed the evidence and stated "based on claimant's credible testimony, we find that......