ANN B. CREWS, PETITIONER,
v.
C. R. STEVENSON TRUCKING BROKERAGE AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1969-02-12
No. 37346
ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur., CALDWELL (Retired), J., dissents.
224 So. 2d 260 Florida Supreme Court (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Ann B. Crews sought workers' compensation benefits as the widow of Amos Wilmer Crews, who was fatally injured while driving a tractor-trailer. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Industrial Commission's decision denying benefits and held that the evidence supported finding the driver was employed by the lessor-trucking company, not the owner of the equipment.


Holding

The Court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the Deputy Commissioner's determination that Crews was employed by Stevenson at the time of the fatal injury, and therefore Stevenson is liable for workers' compensation benefits to the widow. The Full Commission erred in reversing the compensation order.


Key Quotes

“We have examined the petition, briefs and the record and have heard oral argument and conclude that there was competent substantial evidence, which accords with logic and reason, to sustain the order of the deputy and that the Full Commission erred in reversing and dismissing the order awarding compensation.”

The Court's holding that the Deputy Commissioner's finding of employment relationship was supported by substantial evidence and the Full Commission's reversal was error.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On March 14, 1963, C. R. Stevenson Trucking Brokerage entered a one-year lease with W. W. Davidson for a tractor-trailer and driver. The lease gave St…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
ROBERTS, Justice.

ROBERTS, Justice.

This cause is before the court on petition for certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing and dismissing a compensation order by the Deputy Commissioner (now Judge of Industrial Claims).

On March 14, 1963, respondent-Stevenson entered into a one-year lease agreement with W. W. Davidson which provided that Davidson furnish to him a tractor-and-trailer-rig and a driver. The lease provided that the lessee-Stevenson should furnish liability insurance coverage, have absolute control of the equipment, and further, that the driver should be subject to the orders and instructions of Stevenson, who would have the right to request the replacement of the driver for violation of any safety rule or regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission or of the operating policy of lessor. The driver from the inception of the lease agreement to September 3, 1963, was Amos Wilmer Crews (now deceased husband of petitioner —Ann B. Crews), who was severely injured on that date in an accident while driving the tractor-trailer in Michigan.

A week before the accident Stevenson had written a letter to Davidson attemping to cancel the lease but without giving *261notice to the driver who was at the time out of the state operating the lease equipment. At the hearing before the deputy, respondent testified that the reason he sent the letter cancelling the lease was because the driver failed to furnish him with log sheets and mileage of the equipment and the trip, and contended that the violation put. his I. C. C. certificate in jeopardy. There was conflicting evidence regarding the various aspects of the business operations and of employer-employee relationship, but the deputy resolved the conflicts and ordered the employer-Stevenson to pay compensation for permanent total disability, medical expenses, and other benefits. On review the Full Commission examined the issues presented and reversed the compensation order opining that it could be inferred that the driver was in the employment of Davidson at the time he sustained his fatal injuries rather than of respondent-Stevenson.

We have examined the petition, briefs and the record and have heard oral argument and conclude that there was competent substantial evidence, which accords with logic and reason, to sustain the order of the deputy and that the Full Commission erred in reversing and dismissing the order awarding compensation. U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Fla., 55 So.2d 741.

We note that this industrial employee was injured September 3, 1963; an order of compensation was entered May 31, 1967 after a Suggestion of Death had been filed July 5, 1966, indicating that the employee had died in the early part of 1966; the order of the Full Commission reversing the compensation order was filed March 1, 1968, and petition for appellate review was finally filed in this court September 9, 1968. We feel that unexplained delays of this magnitude are inexcusable.

For the reasons stated, we quash the order of the Full Commission, with directions that the order of the deputy commissioner (now Judge of Industrial Claims) be promptly reinstated after amendment necessitated by the death of the employee.

Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $350.00 are awarded to petitioner’s attorneys for representation in this court.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and THORNAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

CALDWELL (Retired), J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 272 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1972)
    …safety purposes in the operation of his truck is not significant in determining his status. The same rules would apply to all employee truck drivers operating trucks in interstate commerce. Compare Crews v. C. R. Stevenson Trucking Brokerage, Fla., 224 So. 2d 260. Looking through form to substance, the contract document alone did not create a true independent contract relationship. The circumstances indicated claimant was merely a truck driver employee of Belford in its regular trucking business, under its…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw