Opinion
No. 41230.
October 12, 1959.
1. Workmen's compensation — evidence — failed to establish employer-employee relationship — compensation benefits properly denied.
Where plaintiff, who sustained broken leg while he and third person were delivering logs to millsite of defendant, was the employee of the third person and not the employee of the defendant, and relationship between defendant and third person was that of vendor and vendee, relationship of employer and employee did not exist between plaintiff and defendant, and award of workmen's compensation benefits against defendant was properly denied.
Headnotes as revised by Lee, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Copiah County; TOM P. BRADY, Judge.
Arrington Arrington, S.E. Allen, Jr., Hazlehurst, for appellant.
I. Burtell Steen was an agent or employee of the appellee, Bascomb Beasley. The appellant, Lawrence Taylor, was entitled to a proper award of compensation under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, inasmuch as he was in reality an employee of the appellee, Bascomb Beasley. Kisner v. Jackson, 195 Miss. 424, 132 So. 90; Marter v. Cathey-Williford-Joines Lumber Co. (Miss.), 82 So.2d 724; Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; Wade v. Traxler Gravel Co., 232 Miss. 592, 100 So.2d 103.
Watkins Eager, Elizabeth Hulen, Jackson; John T. Armstrong, Hazlehurst, for appellees.
I. The injury to appellant here on January 16, 1956 did not arise in the course of or out of any employment of claimant by appellee Beasley, but arose in the course of and out of his employment by one Steen. Under the undisputed evidence the relationship between Steen and Beasley was that of vendor and purchaser or in the alternative Steen would have been an independent contractor. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Bardwell's Estate v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Crosby Lumber Manufacturing Co. v. Durham, 181 Miss. 559, 179 So. 285; Durham v. Deemer Lumber Co. (Miss.), 86 So.2d 343; Employers Liability Insurance Co. v. Haltom, 235 Miss. 74, 108 So.2d 29; Green Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 208 Miss. 651, 45 So.2d 243; Hutchison-Moore Lumber Co. v. Pittman, 154 Miss. 1, 122 So. 191; Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford Jones Co., 220 Miss. 289, 70 So.2d 847; Taylor v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. (La.), 58 So.2d 206; Williams v. George (La.), 15 So.2d 823.
II. It is of course immaterial that on other days and on other occasions Taylor had rendered services to Beasley as an employee at the sawmill. His injury did not occur while he was so employed and therefore did not arise out of or in the course of any employment of him by Beasley. Burnett v. Roberts (Wyo.), 121 P.2d 896; Fairmont Creamery v. Carsten (Okla.), 55 P.2d 757; 27 Am. Jur., Sec. 20; 1 Larson's Workmen's Comp. Law, Sec. 48; 4 Schneider's Workmen's Comp. Text, Sec. 1076.
Lawrence Taylor, on January 16, 1956, sustained a broken leg while he and his employer, Burtell Steen, were delivering logs to the millsite of Bascomb Beasley. For his disability, he sought an award of compensation from Beasley. His claim however was successively denied by the attorney-referee, the full commission, and the circuit court; and he has appealed here.
A detailed statement of the evidence is wholly unnecessary. It is sufficient to say that it was overwhelming to the effect that Taylor was Steen's and not Beasley's employee, and that the relationship between Steen and Beasley was that of vendor and vendee.
(Hn 1) Since the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between Beasley and Taylor, it is obvious that the award of workmen's compensation benefits against Beasley was properly denied. Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford Jones Co., 220 Miss. 389, 70 So.2d 847; Estate of Bardwell v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; Durham v. Deemer Lumber Co., 227 Miss. 461, 86 So.2d 343; Employers Liability Insurance Co. v. Haltom, (Miss.) 108 So.2d 29.
The judgment of the courts below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Kyle, Ethridge and Gillespie, JJ., concur.