Willis v. Aiken County
Decision Date | 07 July 1943 |
Docket Number | 15558. |
Parties | WILLIS et al. v. AIKEN COUNTY. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hendersons & Salley, of Aiken, for appellant.
Williams & Busbee, of Aiken, for repondents.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the lower Court affirming an award of the South Carolina Industrial Commission in favor of the claimants, the widow and children of E. L. Willis deceased, against the County of Aiken, as self-in-surer.
The record discloses the following facts:
E. L. Willis was a deputy sheriff for Aiken County, having been appointed and commissioned as such by J. P. Howard sheriff, as provided by law. He had served in this capacity for about five years prior to his death. On December 12 1941, Sheriff Howard, accompanied by Deputy Willis, went to a certain point in the Eastern portion of Aiken County to destroy a liquor still. They found the still in a somewhat inaccessible place, in a branch, and not being dressed for the occasion, they decided to return to the still that afternoon for the purpose of destroying it. The sheriff did not return, but sent his deputy, Willis, who was accompanied by two county policemen, Olin Redd and Chester Holley. Upon arriving at the scene they found eight sixty-gallon barrels of mash. Mr. Willis turned over two of them and broke them up with an axe. Immediately afterwards he complained of shortness of breath, whereupon Redd and Holley destroyed the other six barrels. When this work of destruction was completed, they knocked a hole in the 25-pound copper still, stuck a hoe handle through it, and Redd and Willis carried the still out to the automobile about a quarter of a mile away.
Along this route, Willis again complained of being out of breath, and was forced to stop and rest four times. After getting into the automobile, and en route to Aiken, he complained of a burning sensation in the eyes and weak pulse; and, as described by the witness, he finally "passed out." The car was stopped and Willis was revived. Upon reaching Aiken he requested to be taken to his home, where he was attended by his physician, Dr. H. T. Hall. The doctor placed him in an Aiken hospital, where he remained under medical treatment until December 21, 1941, when he was returned to his home. Dr. Hall called at his home about eight o'clock the same night to see how he was getting along, and while he was there talking with him Willis suddenly died.
Dr. Hall testified that Mr. Willis died of coronary thrombosis, and it was his unqualified opinion that this condition was precipitated by Mr. Willis' exertion at the liquor still. He definitely expressed the opinion that Willis' death must be attributed to this exertion. The doctor stated that he had never treated him prior to December 12th, but that Willis told him that he had had a pain in his chest the day before raiding the still.
The first question for the determination of this Court is: Was E. L. Willis an officer of the County of Aiken at the time of his death, or an employee, engaged in compensable work within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Upon the facts stated, the Industrial Commission concluded as a matter of fact and of law that the deceased deputy sheriff not only came within the terms of the Act, but that he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and within the scope of his employment, resulting in his death.
In Paragraph (b) of Section 7035-2 of the Compensation Act, Code 1942, an employee is thus defined:
It will be noted that in the latter portion of the paragraph quoted, the Act provides that "as relating to municipal corporations and political subdivisions of the State, the term 'employee' shall include all officers and employees thereof," and excepts such as may be elected by the people or by the council or other governing body, who act in purely administrative capacities and serve for a definite term of office.
It is the contention of the claimants that deputy sheriff Willis was an officer of the county; that his appointment having been made by the sheriff and confirmed by a Circuit Judge, he came within the term "employee," inasmuch as the exception "such as are elected by the people," etc., has no application to a deputy sheriff who is not so elected but who derives his office from the appointment of the sheriff.
The appellant contends in effect that a deputy sheriff is not an officer at all; that a deputy can come into being only by virtue of his appointment by a sheriff, in consequence of which he is the sheriff's alter ego. That a sheriff and a deputy sheriff in contemplation of law constitute one entity. In other words, that the position of a deputy sheriff in the sight of the law is merged in that of the sheriff, and there can be no dual entity.
We are unable to agree with the appellant's position in its application to the Workmen's Compensation Law of this State.
The appointment, duties, etc., of a deputy sheriff in Aiken County are set out as follows in Section 3552-1, 1942 Code ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Sonoco Products Co.
... ... J. A. Chapman Construction Co. et ... al., 202 S.C. 43, 24 S.E.2d 116; Willis et al. v ... Aiken County, 203 S.C. 96, 26 S.E.2d 313; Lanford v ... Clinton Cotton Mills et ... ...
-
State ex rel. Williamson v. Wannamaker
... ... to create or not to create an office. Willis et al. v ... Aiken County, 203 S.C. 96, 26 S.E.2d 313, 315 ... [213 ... ...
-
Pelfrey v. Oconee County
... ... the death from accident in the course of his employment of a ... deputy sheriff in the case of Willis v. Aiken ... County, 203 S.C. 96, 26 S.E.2d 313. But if ... appellant's contention that this authority is not ... applicable in the instant case ... ...
-
Alexander v. Houston
...duties are exercised for the benefit of the public.’ ” Segars–Andrews, 387 S.C. at 124, 691 S.E.2d at 461 (quoting Willis v. Aiken County, 203 S.C. 96, 103, 26 S.E.2d 313, 316 (1943)). Furthermore, “ ‘[t]he powers conferred and the duties to be discharged with regard to a public office must......