Case Name: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. STEWART
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1947-02-28
Citations: 74 Ga. App. 839
Docket Number: 31485
Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. STEWART.
Judges: Sutton, P. J., concurs, and Felton, J., concurs specially.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 839–843

Head Matter:
31485.
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. STEWART.
Decided February 28, 1947.
T. Elton Drake, for plaintiffs in error. Booth & Preston, contra.

Opinion:
Parker, J.
The controlling question here is whether the relationship between the main defendant and the claimant was that of employer and employee, or whether the claimant was the em ployee of an independent contractor and not the employee of the defendant. In other words, if Thomas was merely an employee of Clifton, the claimant who was hired by Thomas was likewise an employee of Clifton and entitled to compensation.; but if Thomas was an independent contractor, the claimant was not the employee of the defendant Clifton and was not entitled to compensation. "Under the Georgia statute and decisions, the test to be applied in determining whether the relationship of the parties under a contract for the performance of labor is that of employer and servant, or that of employer and independent contractor, lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract." Yearwood v. Peabody, 45 Ga. App. 451 (2) (164 S. E. 901). It appears in this ease: that the defendant-employer was a contractor engaged in the erection of a rural electric-power line, and that he hired the claimant's employer, who was in the business of hauling with trucks for hire, to deliver about 50 poles at the location where the line was being erected, and that the defendant, with full knowledge that the claimant had been engaged as a helper, accompanied the claimant's employer and the claimant, who drove the two trucks belonging to the employer, on the delivery of the poles, and rode along the route ahead of them, showing and pointing out to the claimant and to his employer the exact points where the poles were to be put ofll the trucks; that the defendant designated which of the poles on the trucks was to be left at each location; and that the defendant was present at all times and directing the work of the claimant and his employer in the manner set out, when the claimant was injured while, unloading a pole from a truck at a place designated by the defendant.
The finding of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, confirming the finding of the single director, that the defendant-employer directed the time, place, and manner in which the work was to be done, and that the claimant was an employee of the defendant and not an employee of an independent contractor, was supported by the evidence, irrespective of the testimony objected to as conclusions; and the superior court did not err in sustaining the award in favor of the claimant an.d in dismissing the appeal. Hockmuth v. Perkins, 55 Ga. App. 649 (191 S. E. 156); Durham Land Co. v. Kilgore, 56 Ga. App. 785 (194 S. E. 49); Continental Casualty Co. v. Payne, 56 Ga. App. 873 (194 S. E. 428); American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Harris, 61 Ga. App. 319 (6 S. E. 2d, 168); Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Davis, 73 Ga. App. 10 (1) (35 S. E. 2d, 521).
Judgment affirmed.
Sutton, P. J., concurs, and Felton, J., concurs specially.