Davison v. Cardillo

D.C. Circuit

Davison v. Cardillo

143 F.2d 154, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 121, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1944

DocketNo. 8654

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 F.2d 154 (Davison v. Cardillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davison v. Cardillo, 143 F.2d 154, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 121, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint asked review of an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.¹ Grover Dulin died of a heat stroke suffered while he was on duty as an attendant at appellant’s parking lot. Appellant carried no compensation insurance. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner he claimed that Dulin was his partner and introduced a purported partnership agreement. The Deputy Commissioner found that the alleged partnership was a mere device to evade the requirements of the compensation law, that Dulin was actually not a partner but an employee of appellant, and that the heat stroke arose out of and in the course of the employment.

We think the court was right in dismissing the complaint. The evidence supports the Deputy Commissioner’s findings. Appellant had formerly operated the parking lot as sole owner and had carried compensation insurance for his employees. He had complained of the cost of this insurance and sought advice on how to avoid it. Lease, occupancy permit, and insurance against fire and theft were all in his name alone, both before and after the making of the “partnership agreement.” The agreement made no provision for distribution of profits. Appellant showed no concern for the financial responsibility of his associates. They performed menial tasks while he managed the business. The [155]*155terms and form of the agreement are not conclusive.²

The heat stroke plainly arose out of the employment. “Although the risk may be common to all who are exposed to the sun’s rays on a hot day, the question is whether the employment exposes the employee to the risk.”³

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s complaint asked review of an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.¹ Grover Dulin died of a heat stroke suffered while he was on duty as an attendant at appellant’s parking lot. Appellant carried no compensation insurance. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner he claimed that Dulin was his partner and introduced a purported partnership agreement. The Deputy Commissioner found that the alleged partnership was a mere device to evade the requirements of the compensation law, that Dulin was actually not a partner but an employee of appellant, and that the heat stroke arose out of and in the course of the employment.

We think the court was right in dismissing the complaint. The evidence supports the Deputy Commissioner’s findings. Appellant had formerly operated the parking lot as sole owner and had carried compensation insurance for his employees. He had complained of the cost of this insurance and sought advice on how to avoid it. Lease, occupancy permit, and insurance against fire and theft were all in his name alone, both before and after the making of the “partnership agreement.” The agreement made no provision for distribution of profits. Appellant showed no concern for the financial responsibility of his associates. They performed menial tasks while he managed the business. The [155]*155terms and form of the agreement are not conclusive.²

The heat stroke plainly arose out of the employment. “Although the risk may be common to all who are exposed to the sun’s rays on a hot day, the question is whether the employment exposes the employee to the risk.”³

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F.2d 154, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 121, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davison-v-cardillo-cadc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack