MR. AND MRS. L. H. MCCALL, FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
v.
MOTOR FUEL CARRIERS, INC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
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 reversed a circuit court decision that denied workers' compensation death benefits to parents who lost their 21-year-old son. The Court held that the parents qualified as dependents under the Industrial Commission Act because the evidence clearly showed the son was their primary breadwinner and regularly contributed to their support.
The parents qualified as dependents because the evidence established the son was their primary breadwinner and regularly contributed to their support. The Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and upheld the Industrial Commission's award, holding that the evidence was substantial and sufficient under the law.
“This law was purposely enacted to meet this kind of a situation. The Court has been liberal in construing its every provision to effectuate this purpose.”
Establishes the Court's interpretive approach to workers' compensation law—favoring broad protection for dependents in situations of economic necessity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe McCall parents, ages 67 and 60+, were unable to work and owned only a modest home. Their 21-year-old son, who had served in the Navy and held seve…
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 Liberal Construction Of Workers' Compensation Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
The Florida Industrial Commission awarded compensation to claimants for the death of their son. The circuit court reversed the award because the claimants were not shown to be dependents. From the latter judgment this appeal is taken.
*855The only testimony is that of the claimants. There are no substantial conflicts in it, consequently our determination must rest upon the legal effect of the evidence. The Commission’s award was based upon our decision in the cases of Moorer v. Putnam Lumber Co., 152 Fla. 520, 12 So. (2nd) 370; Williams Brothers Corporation, et al., v. Rufus McAmy Hicks, et al., 154 Fla. 44, 16 So. (2nd) 432.
The gist of the evidence is that the father, 67 years of age, is too infirm to earn a living. The mother, past 60 years old, is without earnng power. The family consisted of father, mother and the 21 year old son, now deceased.
The father owned a modest home but other than that neither parent owned any property. The son had served several months in the United States Navy; had received a medical discharge and, thereafter, until his death, had held several jobs. While in the Navy he sent sums of ten, twenty, fifty and, on one occasion, one hundred dollars to his parents. After he was discharged from the Navy he worked a while for the Express Company, during which time he contributed thirty dollars, regularly, every two weeks to his parents support.
At the age of 16 the boy quit school and went to work. At all times, when employed, he contributed to the support of his parents. When he met his death his parents were forced to borrow money for burial expenses. They had exhausted all of their accumulations, except their home, in combating, disease and misfortune. With the loss of their son the last able-bodied breadwinner was gone. This law was purposely enacted to meet this kind of a situation. The Court has been liberal in construing its every provision to effectuate this purpose. It is clear beyond any question that the Industrial Commission was justified in the award. The rule is well established that their award will be upheld if there is substantial testimony before them.
The judgment is reversed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)…the testimony in the record and enter a judgment of reversal of the Full Commission. The case of Sonny Boy's Fruit Co. v. Compton, Fla., 46 So. 2d 17, is cited as authority to sustain this view. See McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc., 155 Fla. 854, 22 So. 2d 153; Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla., 40 So. 2d 889. An answer to the following question may be determinative of the contention of counsel for appellant: May a Circuit Judge, when reviewing on appeal an award entered by the Florida Industrial Commission…
-
N. & L. Auto Parts Co. & Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Doman, 111 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…o. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. . E.g.: DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. Pittman, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 600; Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pinkerman, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 547; McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc., 155 Fla. 854, 22 So. 2d 153.…
-
Crawford v. Benrus Mkt., 40 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1949)…mined by counting noses. In a case like this the probity of the evidence is for the Industrial Commission to determine and their finding should not be reversed unless shown to be clearly erroneous. McCall et al. v. Motor Fuel Carriers, 155 Fla. 854, 22 So.2d 153. That the claimant was seriously injured is not disputed. He was confined to his bed and hospitalized for weeks. Some of the evidence shows that he was injured in the course of his employment while some of it would indicate that it was the result o…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moorer v. Putnam Lumber Co., 152 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1943)
- Olin's Inc. v. Ira Phillips, 152 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1943)
- Williams Bros. Corp. & Zurich Gen. Accident & Liab. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Hicks, 154 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1944)
- Miller v. Tilden, 154 Fla. 44 (Fla. 1944)