Reliance Insurance v. Ham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Reliance Insurance v. Ham

203 S.E.2d 315, 130 Ga. App. 382, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1325

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1973

Docket48490

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 S.E.2d 315 (Reliance Insurance v. Ham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reliance Insurance v. Ham, 203 S.E.2d 315, 130 Ga. App. 382, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1325 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, Judge.

Willie Lewis Ham, deceased, was accidentally killed while moving dirt on a piece-work yardage basis. His widow filed a claim for workmen’s compensation. The deputy director’s finding of fact was that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. On appeal to the full board, the finding of the deputy director was set aside, and the board found that he was an employee, as the employer controlled the time, manner, and method of his operation, and the accident in which he was killed arose out of and in the course of his employment. An award was made in accordance with these findings, including a requirement that the employer pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses and funeral expenses. The superior court, on appeal, affirmed, and the insurer and employer appeal. Held:

The evidence before the board disclosed that the employer directed the time the work was to be done, supplied some labor and employment, and directed him as to what dirt was to be moved and to what place. The evidence did not demand a finding that he was an independent contractor. Compare Employers Mutual &c. Co. v. Johnson, 104 Ga. App. 617 (122 SE2d 308). While there was evidence from which it could have been found that he was an independent contractor, there was also sufficient evidence to find that he was a controlled employee. The evidence being in conflict, and evidence for claimant being sufficient to support the award, the lower court did not err in affirming said award. See International Agricultural Corp. v. Suber, 24 Ga. App. 445 (2) (101 SE 300); Quinan v. Standard Fuel Supply Co., 25 Ga. App. 47 (1, 2) (102 SE 543); Mount v. Southern R. Co., 42 Ga. App. 546 (1) (156 SE 701); Durham Land Co. v. Kilgore, 56 Ga. App. 785 (194 SE 49); Baird v. Travelers Ins. Co., 98 Ga. App. 882, 884 (1) (107 SE2d 579).

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

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

Evans, Judge.

Willie Lewis Ham, deceased, was accidentally killed while moving dirt on a piece-work yardage basis. His widow filed a claim for workmen’s compensation. The deputy director’s finding of fact was that he was an independent contractor and not an employee. On appeal to the full board, the finding of the deputy director was set aside, and the board found that he was an employee, as the employer controlled the time, manner, and method of his operation, and the accident in which he was killed arose out of and in the course of his employment. An award was made in accordance with these findings, including a requirement that the employer pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses and funeral expenses. The superior court, on appeal, affirmed, and the insurer and employer appeal. Held:

The evidence before the board disclosed that the employer directed the time the work was to be done, supplied some labor and employment, and directed him as to what dirt was to be moved and to what place. The evidence did not demand a finding that he was an independent contractor. Compare Employers Mutual &c. Co. v. Johnson, 104 Ga. App. 617 (122 SE2d 308). While there was evidence from which it could have been found that he was an independent contractor, there was also sufficient evidence to find that he was a controlled employee. The evidence being in conflict, and evidence for claimant being sufficient to support the award, the lower court did not err in affirming said award. See International Agricultural Corp. v. Suber, 24 Ga. App. 445 (2) (101 SE 300); Quinan v. Standard Fuel Supply Co., 25 Ga. App. 47 (1, 2) (102 SE 543); Mount v. Southern R. Co., 42 Ga. App. 546 (1) (156 SE 701); Durham Land Co. v. Kilgore, 56 Ga. App. 785 (194 SE 49); Baird v. Travelers Ins. Co., 98 Ga. App. 882, 884 (1) (107 SE2d 579).

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.E.2d 315, 130 Ga. App. 382, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reliance-insurance-v-ham-gactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack