{ "id": 8628112, "name": "LILLY COOPER, Widow; WILLIAM LEE COOPER, JR., Son; BARBARA JEAN COOPER, Daughter, and ANNA LEE BOBBITT, Stepdaughter of WILLIAM LEE COOPER, Deceased, Employee, v. COLONIAL ICE COMPANY, Employer; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Cooper v. Colonial Ice Co.", "decision_date": "1949-03-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "43", "last_page": "46", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "230 N.C. 43" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627387 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618886 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8594993 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 408", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619073 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8594820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 S.E. 2d 281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622530 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611558 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626853 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 342", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628070 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 S.E. 2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613544 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625079 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E. 2d 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612007 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624486 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12166022 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0356-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 541, "char_count": 9490, "ocr_confidence": 0.475, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0117007980838383e-07, "percentile": 0.5423742851417206 }, "sha256": "837a12ea8eda5d838216d5e42042ab84442876342e61bb31219feb3a0e2a5839", "simhash": "1:915906a974622c4d", "word_count": 1604 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BarNHill, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "LILLY COOPER, Widow; WILLIAM LEE COOPER, JR., Son; BARBARA JEAN COOPER, Daughter, and ANNA LEE BOBBITT, Stepdaughter of WILLIAM LEE COOPER, Deceased, Employee, v. COLONIAL ICE COMPANY, Employer; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Devtn, J.\nThe defendants denied liability on the ground that the decedent William Lee Cooper, at the time of his injury, was not an employee of tbe defendant Colonial Ice Co. witbin the meaning of the statute (G.S. 97-2 (b)) hut was an independent contractor. It was urged that the facts, as such, found by the Industrial Commission sustain the defendants\u2019 view, and are insufficient to support an award in favor of claimants under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nIn order to implement the remedial purposes of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act the Industrial Commission is constituted the fact-finding body, and the statute declares that the findings of this Commission 'shall be \u201cconclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.\u201d G.S. 97-86; Hunter v. Peirson, 229 N.C. 356, 49 S.E. 2d 653; Gabriel v. Newton, 227 N.C. 314, 42 S.E. 2d 96; Smith v. Paper Co., 226 N.C. 47, 36 S.E. 2d 730; Beach v. McLean, 219 N.C. 521, 14 S.E. 2d 515; Cloninger v. Bakery Co., 218 N.C. 26, 9 S.E. 2d 615; Lockey v. Cohen, 213 N.C. 356, 196 S.E. 342; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N.C. 655, 188 S.E. 77. But this does not mean that the conclusions of .the Commission from the facts found are in all respects unexceptionable. Perley v. Paving Co., 228 N.C. 479, 46 S.E. 2d 298. Or as expressed by Justice Denny in Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co., 228 N.C. 447, 46 S.E. 2d 109, \u201cWhen, facts are found by the Commission under a misapprehension of the law, the court is not bound by such findings.\u201d Here the material facts are not controverted. But it is argued that these facts necessarily develop the defendant\u2019s contention that the contract of service of the decedent was that of an independent contractor. Question is raised whether the findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence (Carlton v. Barnhardt-Seagle Co., supra), and, if so, whether on the facts so found the contractual relationship between the decedent and the defendant Ice Company was such as to invoke remedy under the Act.\nIt is well settled as a general rule that an independent contractor is one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do certain work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the results of his work. Perley v. Paving Co., supra; Greer v. Construction Co., 190 N.C. 632, 130 S.E. 739. The distinction between an independent contractor and an employee entitled to benefits under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act has frequently been considered by this Court and applied to the particular circumstances of individual cases. Perley v. Paving Co., supra; Bell v. Lumber Co., 227 N.C. 173, 41 S.E. 2d 281; Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E. 2d 612; Smith v. Paper Co., supra; Hayes v. Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E. 2d 137; Beach v. McLean, supra; Creswell v. Pub. Co., 204 N.C. 380, 168 S.E. 408; Johnson v. Hosiery Co., 199 N.C. 38, 153 S.E. 591.\nAn examination of the record in the case at bar in the light of these decisions leads to the conclusion that the findings of fact of the Industrial Commission have their inception in the evidence adduced at th hearing and are based thereon, and that the inferences of fact dedncible therefrom support the award in favor of claimants. Hence, we think the judgment of the Superior Court in affirmance should not be disturbed. In Rewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E. 2d 97, Chief Justice Stacy, speaking to this point, said: \u201cThe Courts are not at liberty to reweigh the evidence and to set aside the findings of the Commission, simply because other inferences could have been drawn and different conclusions might have been reached.\u201d And in Gabriel v. Newton, 227 N.C. 314, 42 S.E. 2d 96, it was said: \u201cPermissible inferences contra would not warrant setting aside the findings of the Commission.\u201d\n\u00a5e think the record discloses facts sufficient to sustain the award. DeVine v. Steel Co., 227 N.C. 684, 44 S.E. 2d 77.\nDefendants rely on Creswell v. Pub. Co., 204 N.C. 380, 168 S.E. 408, but we think the characteristics of an employment which is cognizable under the Act are here more pronounced than in the Creswell case, and that the facts are distinguishable.\nThe judgment sustaining the award of the Industrial Commission is\nAffirmed.\nBarNHill, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Devtn, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Connor, Gardner & Connor and Cyrus F. Lee for plaintiffs, appellees.", "Ruarh & Ruarle for defendants, appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LILLY COOPER, Widow; WILLIAM LEE COOPER, JR., Son; BARBARA JEAN COOPER, Daughter, and ANNA LEE BOBBITT, Stepdaughter of WILLIAM LEE COOPER, Deceased, Employee, v. COLONIAL ICE COMPANY, Employer; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 2 March, 1949.)\n1. Mastei* and Servant \u00a7 55d\u2014\nFindings of fact of the Industrial Commission are conclusive when supported by evidence, even though the evidence permit an inference contra, but conclusions of law deduced from the facts found under a misapprehension of law are reviewable.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 4a\u2014\nAn independent contractor is one who exercises an independent employment and contracts to do certain work according to his own judgment and method, without being subject to his employer except as to the results of his work.\n8. Master and Servant \u00a7 39b \u2014 Evidence held to sustain finding that deceased was employee and not independent contractor.\nThe evidence disclosed that intestate sold ice in his territory at defendant\u2019s regular retail price and thereafter paid defendant a stipulated sum for each block sold, that defendant turned over to him all orders received by it within his territory, furnished intestate a horse and wagon and feed for the horse, which were kept at defendant's place of business, that defendant required him to report at the plant at a stipulated time six days a week and that defendant delivered ice to the wagon upon request and did not permit intestate to haul on the wagon more than six blocks of ice at a time, with evidence that at times intestate was on defendant\u2019s pay roll, is held sufficient to support the finding of the Industrial Commission that intestate was an employee within the coverage of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act and not an independent contractor. G.S. 97-2 (b).\nBarnhill, J., dissents.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, J., at October Term, 1948, of WilsoN.\nAffirmed.\nClaim by dependents of William Lee Cooper under Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act for compensation for fatal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant Colonial lee Co.\nThe facts found by the Industrial Commission, and upon which it based an award may be summarized as follows :\nTen years before his death William Lee Cooper entered into an oral arrangement with Colonial Ice Co. for the sale and delivery of ice in specified territory in Wilson. Defendant agreed to furnish him a horse and wagon, and all equipment used in connection with retail delivery of ice. The name of the' Colonial Ice Co. was on the wagon. According to this arrangement each morning during the season Cooper was to obtain a load of ice at defendant\u2019s plant and was charged -$1.20 for each block which he was to sell at the Company\u2019s regular retail price of $1.80. Cooper was to begin work at 7 a.m. and quit before dark. Whenever orders were received by the defendant for ice to be delivered in the territory served by Cooper these orders were turned over to Cooper to make delivery, and defendant would deliver additional ice to his wagon when requested. Each day when Cooper returned from selling ice, he paid the Ice Company at the specified rate and was credited with ice unsold. The defendant had right to terminate the agreement at any time or discharge him if work unsatisfactory. A similar arrangement applied to retail sale of coal. At times Cooper was on the defendant\u2019s pay roll for other work at the plant. The Industrial Commission found his hours of work, territory, and other details concerning the sale and delivery of ice were supervised by defendant, and that the arrangement for purchase and payment of ice was in effect a method of calculating his wages and obtaining payment for ice delivered by him. Cooper kept the horse and wagon in defendant\u2019s plant and he fed the horse on materials furnished by defendant. Defendant\u2019s manager testified, \u201cDuring the winter months of \u201946 and \u201947 he was on the payroll.\u201d Defendant did not allow him to haul on the wagon more than six blocks of ice at the time. Cooper sold ice ticket books and turned the money over to defendant, thereafter accepting tickets as cash. In October, 1947, while Cooper was engaged under this arrangement in delivering ice, he was struck by a motortruck and injured, and died in consequence. In defendant\u2019s form report of the injury (employer\u2019s report of accident to employee) transmitted to the Industrial Commission 16 October, 1947, the Colonial Ice Co. was named as \u201cemployer\u201d and \u201cice delivery\u201d was put down as Cooper\u2019s \u201cregular occupation.\u201d In response to the question, \u201cHow long employed by you\u201d defendant wrote, \u201c10 years.\u201d \u201cPiece or time work?\u201d \u201cPiece.\u201d ... 10 hours per day, 6 days per week, average weekly earnings $40.\nThe Industrial Commission found that Cooper\u2019s fatal injury was by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant Ice Company, and awarded compensation in accord with the statute. On appeal by the defendants to the Superior Court the action of the Industrial Commission was in all respects affirmed, and defendants appealed to this Court.\nConnor, Gardner & Connor and Cyrus F. Lee for plaintiffs, appellees.\nRuarh & Ruarle for defendants, appellants." }, "file_name": "0043-01", "first_page_order": 99, "last_page_order": 102 }