HUGH RAINSFORD, PETITIONER,
v.
MCARTHUR DAIRIES, AND GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORP. AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a District Court of Appeal decision that upheld a workers' compensation denial finding Rainsford was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The Court held that the finding was supported by evidence and that a prior precedent Rainsford relied upon lacked binding authority due to an equally divided court vote.
The Court affirmed the Commission's order denying compensation, holding that the finding of independent contractor status was amply supported by the evidence and that Sears, Roebuck did not control because material factual distinctions existed. Additionally, the Sears, Roebuck decision lacked binding precedential value because it was decided on only three affirmative votes when six justices were required for a majority.
“Upon further consideration of the evidence, we agree and have concluded that the finding of fact in this respect is amply supported thereby.”
The Court's affirmation that the evidence adequately supported the Commission's finding that Rainsford was an independent contractor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRainsford, a claimant, suffered an injury while working for McArthur Dairies and sought workers' compensation. Both the Deputy Commissioner and the Fu…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Contractor Vs. Employee cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the court on cer-tiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Rains ford v. McArthur Dairies, Fla.App., 1959, 108 So.2d 914. The decision in question denied certiorari in a workman’s compensation case in which both the Deputy Commissioner and the Full Commission declined to award compensation to the claimant, who is the petitioner here, on a finding of fact that he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the respondent, McArthur Dairies, at the time of the injury for which compensation was sought.
The writ was initially issued by this court because of an apparent conflict with Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Pixler, 140 Fla. 677, 192 So. 617. In its decision of affirmance the appellate court considered the Sears, Roebuck case and held that there were material distinctions in the facts involved in the two cases, so that the Sears, Roebuck case did not require a finding contrary to that made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Full Commission respecting the claimant’s employment status. Upon further consideration of the evidence, we agree and have concluded that the finding of fact in this respect is amply supported thereby. It follows that the District Court of Appeal was eminently correct in declining to overturn the Commission’s order denying compensation to the petitioner-claimant.
It should be noted that 'the petitioner’s reliance upon the Sears, Roebuck decision was misplaced for another reason. That case was decided in 1939 at a time when this court was composed of only six justices; and it appears that only three justices voted- for affirmance, with two justices dissenting and one justice not participating. Under § 4 of Article 5 of our Constitution, F.S.A., the concurrence of a majority of the six-member court was necessary to a decision when any member of a division of the court dissented from the majority of such division on any question. See State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 1904, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51, 52. The affirmance of the lower court’s decision upon the basis of only three af*619firmative votes was made pursuant to the policy of this court to do so in order to avoid a delay in a decision of the appeal which might amount to a denial of justice. But, as stated in State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, supra,
“While the judgment is a bar to any subsequent action for the same cause, * * * yet, as no matters of law are decided so far as the question upon which the court is equally divided is concerned, the judgment possesses no dignity as a judicial precedent. It carries upon its face a badge which precludes any application of it in future under the doctrine of stare de-cisis.”
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued should be and it is hereby quashed and the cause dismissed.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)
- Sears v. Pixler, 140 Fla. 677 (Fla. 1939)
- Rainsford v. McARTHUR Dairies, 108 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)