EMPLOYER: STONE & STONE, MARIANNA, FLORIDA; CARRIER: GLEN FALLS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ORLANDO, FLORIDA,
v.
EMPLOYEE: PAUL WILLIAM SCOTT, DECEASED; CLAIMANT: MR. AND MRS. J. I. SCOTT, MOTHER AND FATHER, MARIANNA FLORIDA; FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
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 father was not a dependent as contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The deceased employee made regular contributions to his mother and some to his father, who also had income from a farm and store. The father had paid …
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 Dependency cases and more on FLexlaw
In April, 1941, while in the employment of Stone and Stone, wholesale, grocers' of Marianna, Florida, Paul William Scott was killed in line of duty. He was single, twenty-seven years old, was living and boarding with a sister and was making twenty-five dollars per week. His father and mother filed claims for dependency under the Workmen’s Compensation Act Chapter 17481, Acts of 1935 and each was allowed $6.25 per week for 350 weeks by the Deputy Commissioner. This award was approved by the full commission and an appeal was affirmed by the circuit court. This appeal is from that part of the latter decision awarding compensation to the father.
■ The sole question to 'be answered is whether or not the father J. I. Scott was a dependent of the deceased at the time of his. death as contemplated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The record discloses that the deceased was making regular contributions to his mother at the time of his death and that at various times, he had contributed amounts totalling fifty to sixty dollars to his father which the latter had paid on a mortgage on his farm where he and his family lived, and that from his country store the father realized a profit of twenty *23dollars per month. It is also shown that, he: had other income from the farm and from other sources.
The question of who constitute dependents under the .Workmen’s Compensation Act was thoroughly considered and answered in Panama City Stevedore Company, Inc., v. Padgett, decided March 10, 1942, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So. (2nd) 822. The ¿appellant is: not a dependent within the rule stated in the latter case. The • judgment is accordingly .reversed on. authprity of that case.
Reversed.
WHITFIELD, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C. J., BUFORD and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sherman v. Fla. Tar & Creosote Corp., 160 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1948)…here is no showing of support for him by deceased. The [*699] following cases are in line with the case last cited and support this view; Cross et ux. v. Sumter County, et al., 152 Fla. 864, 13 So. (2nd) 219; Stone & Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al., 151 Fla. 21, 9 So. (2nd) 168; Williams Bros. v. Hicks, 155 Fla. 44, 16 So. (2nd) 432. What has been said with reference to the father’s dependence on the deceased son applies as well to the claim of the mother as to dependency in behalf of the three minor chil…
-
Palm Beach Dairy Co. & Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ryan, 154 Fla. 648 (Fla. 1944)…urrendered but we hold this point to be above the bare subsistence level. Different phases of the question of dependency were dealt with in Panama City Stevedoring Co. Inc. v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So. (2nd) 832; Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al., 151 Fla. 21, 9 So. (2nd) 168; Moorer v. Putnam Lumber Co., 152 Fla. 520, 12 So. (2nd) 370; and Johnson, et al., v. Midland Construction Co., 152 Fla. 289, 11 So. (2nd) 895. In our view, these cases conclude the question raised here against appellants so the jud…
-
Failing Exploration & Drilling Co. v. Cotton, 153 Fla. 827 (Fla. 1943)…as dependent of the deceased within the purview of applicable statutes and the law as enunciated by this Court in the case of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 Sou. (2nd) 822, and Stone & Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al., 151 Fla. 21, 9 So. (2nd) 168. Cross, et ux, v. Sumter Co. et al., 152 Fla. 864, 13 So. (2nd) 219. For the reason stated, the judgment should be reversed. So ordered. TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Panama City Stevedoring Co. v. MRS. Georgia Padgett, 149 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1942)