Wren v. D. F. Jones Construction Company
Citation | 194 S.W.2d 896,210 Ark. 40 |
Decision Date | 29 April 1946 |
Docket Number | 4-7884 |
Parties | Wren v. D. F. Jones Construction Company |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 24, 1946.
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court; Gus W. Jones, Judge.
Affirmed.
Ward Martin, for appellant.
Buzbee Harrison & Wright, for appellee.
OPINION
This appeal involves a claim filed under the Workmen's Compensation Law, which is Act No. 319 of 1939. The appellant is the widow of Doss Wren, and she seeks to recover compensation from appellee for the death of her husband. There are two questions presented on this appeal; and the facts will appear as we discuss these questions.
I. Did Appellee, by its Failure to Promptly File Notice of Intention to Controvert the Claim, Thereby Lose its right to Make the Defense of Independent Contractor? Doss Wren was engaged in hauling gravel for appellee, and was instantly killed while driving a truck in Columbia county, Arkansas, on July 16, 1942. On July 21st, D. F. Jones Construction Co. filed the first report with the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Shortly thereafter the Commission received notice from an attorney (not now in the case), advising the Commission of the claim of the appellant. Then ensued a series of unexplained delays. The Commission set the hearing for October 15th, but instead of a hearing, Mrs. Wren advised the Commission, by letter of that date, that her present attorney was the only one authorized to represent her. The hearing was reset for November 13th; and then reset for December 3rd; and there was a still further delay. Finally, on March 12, 1943, notice of hearing was given for March 25, 1943; and on that notice the subject of the hearing was listed as "Dependency."
At the beginning of the hearing before the referee on the date last mentioned, appellant filed "Motion for Allowance of Compensation," which recited that Doss Wren was killed on July 16, 1942, and that notice of claim was given on July 21st in accordance with § 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Law; and On the argument of this motion, appellee's attorney informed the referee, and it is in the record:
The referee then ruled:
From these excerpts from the record, it is thus clear that the appellee had all along controverted the claim, and appellant's counsel had been so informed. Even if the first notice to controvert was for some other ground than the defense of independent contractor, nevertheless, that point could be raised as late as the hearing. This is true because of § 19-d of the Act which concludes with these words: "nor shall the filing of the notice preclude the employer raising any additional defense." We, therefore, hold that, under the facts in this case, the defense of independent contractor could be raised as late as the hearing of March 25, 1943.
II. Was Doss Wren an Independent Contractor at the Time and Place he was Killed? Wren owned his own truck and was engaged in hauling gravel for appellee at $ 3 per load. Appellee loaded the truck at the gravel pit, and Wren hauled the gravel some 14 miles, and dumped the gravel at the place indicated by appellee. It was while Wren was driving his loaded truck on the public highway that another vehicle collided with his truck, and inflicted mortal injuries to Wren. As before stated, Wren was compensated for the loads hauled. He was free to make as many or as few trips per day as he desired. The appellee made no deductions from Wren's pay for Social Security or Unemployment Compensation. Wren could buy gasoline wherever he desired; or for convenience, he could buy it at a designated station and sign a ticket which would later be charged against his pay.
The Commission held that Wren was an independent contractor and not an employee; and therefore denied recovery to the appellant. The Commission used this language:
If Wren was an employee of the appellee, then Wren was protected by the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the appellant should recover. If Wren was an independent contractor, then he was not protected by the Workmen's Compensation Law, and appellant cannot recover. The definition of "employee" in § 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Law is authority for these statements. See Irvan v. Bounds, 205 Ark. 752, 170 S.W.2d 674.
Whether Wren was an employee or an independent contractor is thus the decisive question; and it is a question of fact. In Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. Andrews, 192 Ark. 291, 91 S.W.2d 1026, it was insisted that the trial court should have decided as a matter of law whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor; and, in denying that contention, this court said:
In Hobbs-Western Co. v. Carmical, 192 Ark. 59, 91 S.W.2d 605, in discussing the duty of the jury to decide whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor, this court said:
We have, also, held that when facts are made to appear, from which inferences are to be drawn and conclusions reached then it is for the jury to draw the inferences and reach the conclusions. In Grand Lodge v. Banister, 80 Ark. 190, 96 S.W. 742, Mr. Justice McCulloch said: In St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Coleman, 97 Ark. 438, 135 S.W. 338, Ch. J. McCulloch said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wren v. D. F. Jones Const. Co.
... ... F. Jones Construction Company, employer, and another. From a judgment affirming an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission denying the claim, claimant appeals ... ...
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Siegler, 5-3761
...that the findings of fact of the Workmen's Compensation Commission have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Wren v. D. F. Jones Construction Co., 210 Ark. 40, 194 S.W.2d 896. But we reach the conclusion that the ruling of the Commission in this case was a finding of law and not one of f......
-
Terry v. AP Green Fire Brick Company, 3362.
...Lumber Co. v. McCain, 205 Ark. 631, 170 S.W.2d 64; Ozan Lumber Co. v. Garner, 208 Ark. 645, 187 S.W.2d 181; Wren v. D. F. Jones Construction Co., 210 Ark. 40, 194 S.W.2d 896, and other decisions cited in those cases. It should be pointed out that a finding that the deceased at the time of h......
-
Boyd Excelsior Fuel Co. v. McKown
...of a jury, it is for the Commission and not this court to draw inferences and reach conclusions from the facts. Wren v. D. F. Jones Const. Co., 210 Ark. 40, 194 S.W.2d 896. It is likewise the Commission's sole province to arrive at a conclusion of fact when medical testimony is in conflict.......