McCummings v. ANDERSON THEATRE CO.

81 S.E.2d 348, 225 S.C. 187, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 25
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 29, 1954
Docket16851
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 81 S.E.2d 348 (McCummings v. ANDERSON THEATRE CO.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McCummings v. ANDERSON THEATRE CO., 81 S.E.2d 348, 225 S.C. 187, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 25 (S.C. 1954).

Opinions

Taylor, Justice.

The Circuit Judge affirmed in toto the findings of the Commission to the effect that claimant’s compensation rate is to be based upon his total earnings and the employer and its carrier appeal to this Court contending that there was error in the following particulars :

1. In affirming the award of the Industrial Commission to respondent, the error being that the uncontradicted evidence establishes that the average weekly wage of respondent, for the purposes of a workmen’s compensation claim against the employer, was $6.00 per week, so that the minimum allowance of $5.00 per week compensation benefits was applicable instead of the maximum benefits of $25.00 per week based upon average weekly wages of $61.00 per week.

2. In affirming the award of the Industrial Commission to respondent, the error being that the Workmen’s Compensation Law provides that the “average weekly wage,” as a basis for computing benefits under that law, is the wage earned by the employee in the employment in which injury occurs, and not the combination of the wages earned in .that and other unconnected employment.

[194]*194We are of the opinion that both of these questions must be resolved against contentions of appellants as we find no error in the order of the Circuit Court when considered in the light of the questions raised but such is not to be considered as a precedent for the purpose of computing an employee’s average weekly wages within the contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Inasmuch as the question of how a claimant’s weekly wage should be computed is a most important one and no other method other than those above referred to was raised or discussed either in the briefs or in oral argument, we prefer not to pass upon any other method of doing so until properly before this Court and fully argued.

Baker, C. J., Stukes, J., and Bruce Littlejohn, Acting Associate Justice, concur. Oxner, J., concurs in result.

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

Related

Brunson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
542 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
Boles v. Una Water District
353 S.E.2d 286 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1987)
Bennett v. Gary Smith Builders
245 S.E.2d 129 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Foreman v. Jackson Minit Markets, Inc.
217 S.E.2d 214 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1975)
Barnhardt v. Yellow Cab Company
146 S.E.2d 479 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Maver v. Dwelling Managers Co.
158 A.2d 235 (Essex County Court, 1960)
Wilson v. City of Haines City
97 So. 2d 208 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1957)
McCummings v. ANDERSON THEATRE CO.
81 S.E.2d 348 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.E.2d 348, 225 S.C. 187, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccummings-v-anderson-theatre-co-sc-1954.