Opinion ID: 1267569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of section 41-10-10 et seq.

Text: ADO contends the trial Court erred in holding that § 41-10-10 et seq. applies to independent contractors, no less than to employee. We agree. The statute governs payment of employee wages whether earned on a time, task, piece or commission basis. It does not, however, embrace the earnings of independent contractors. [1] Similarly, this Court has consistently held that independent contractors are not subject to the Worker's Compensation Act, notwithstanding the absence of specific language excluding them. Young v. Warr , 252 S.C. 179, 165 S.E. (2d) 797 (1969). Independent contractors are not subject to employer control or direction, which negates any employer-employee relationship. Chavis v. Watkins , 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E. (2d) 648 (1971). Although Adamson was characterized in the contract as an independent contractor, it was for the jury to determine whether, under all the evidence, he was an employee so as to fall within the provisions of § 41-10-10 et seq. Accordingly, the trial Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that § 41-10-10 applied to Adamson.