B. B. CROSS AND EMMA ELIZABETH CROSS
v.
SUMTER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Fla. | 1943-05-04
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
152 Fla. 864 Florida Supreme Court (1943) Caution
Also reported at: 13 So. 2d 219
Cited by 9 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

In this workers' compensation case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that the parents of a 16-year-old boy killed in a work accident were not legal dependents entitled to death benefits, despite living with him, because he had not established a pattern of actual and substantial regular support for them.


Holding

The court affirmed that the parents were not dependents within the legal definition because they failed to establish that actual and substantial support had been made regularly and that there was reasonable expectation it would continue in the future.


Key Quotes

“before a claimant may be deemed a dependent within the law it must be shown that because of physical or mental incapacity or lack of means actual dependency for support exists; that actual and substantial support has been made regularly; and that there is reasonable expectation that it will be made in the future”

Establishes the three-part legal test for determining dependency under Florida workers' compensation law

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

Joseph Warren Cross, age 16, suffered fatal injuries on February 24, 1942, while employed by Sumter County after only 11 days on the job. He lived wit…

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
SEBRING, J.:

SEBRING, J.:

While in the employment of Sumter County, Florida, Joseph Warren Cross, a minor suffered accidental injuries from which he died. It is stipulated by counsel that the claim was compensable. The only question before this Court is whether or not the mother and father were dependents at the time of the death.

The deputy commissioner found partial dependency and made an award to the claimants. The Florida Industrial Commission reversed the award. The Circuit Court of Sumter County affirmed the ruling of the Florida Industrial Commission. The case is here on appeal.

The record shows the the fatal injury occurred on February 24, 1942. At that time the deceased was 16 years of age. He resided with his parents, there being also a younger brother and sister in the family. Prior to the accident, the boy had been attending public school. The school term had closed in January, 1942. The fair implication from the evidence is that he intended to return to school when it resumed in June of the same year. Two years prior to the accident the boy had suffered a severe leg injury which had prevented him from doing manual labor for a considerable period of time. Pie had recovered sufficiently to do hard work only shortly prior to the close of school in January, 1942. In February, 1942 he had become employed by the County. He had been on the job 11 days when the fatal injury occurred. His first week’s wages had been turned over to the father. Before that time all that the father had received from the son were certain small sums derived from selling peanuts and doing odd jobs after school hours. At no time could the contributions made have exceeded the cost of support.

The father was a tenant farmer and odd-job man. It was shown that he was able to work and support the family in accordance with their station in life, although being uneducated and untrained, the money that he could earn was necessarily small. He had been employed as a day laborer *866by Sumter County prior to the accident to his son. Before going to work for the County he had had other employment of an unskilled nature, in the community. He had quit his work with the County to take a better job as a meat cutter. At the time of the hearing he was working in a packing house for $16 a week.

The Workmens Compensation Law of Florida F.S.A. Sec. 440.01 et seq., does not define who are compensable dependents. This Court has considered the matter, however, and has determined that before a claimant may be deemed a dependent within the law it must be shown that because of physical or mental incapacity or lack of means actual dependency for support exists; that actual and substantial support has been made regularly; and that there is reasonable expectation that it will be made in the future. It was determined, also, that casual gifts at irregular intervals will not support a claim based on dependency. Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., et al., v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So. (2nd) 822.

The evidence fails to show that appellants are dependents within this rule. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …o the support of another. If this were not so it could lead to the ridiculous situation wherein one who is himself a dependent is found to be a person on whom another is dependent. We think the holding of this Court in Cross v. Sumter County, 1943, 152 Fla. 864, 13 So. 2d 219, supports this view. In the last cited case, which held the father and mother of the deceased minor not to be dependents of the child, this Court, 13 So. 2d on page 220, said of the deceased: “ * * * In February, 1942, he had become…
  • Sherman v. Fla. Tar & Creosote Corp., 160 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1948)
    …moved away at any time. The father is not shown to be without means and there 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 th…
  • …utes 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

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw