Charles Evans Whittaker

“ It further found that respondent's evidence disclosed that respondent 'was not only in the business of supplying electricity to rural communities, but (was) also in the business of constructing the lines and substations necessary for the distribution of the product,' (238 F.2d 351) , and that the contracted work was of like nature and, hence, was 'a part of (respondent's) trade, business or occupation,' within the meaning of § 72-111, and, therefore, petitioner was respondent's statutory employee, and, hence, the court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. ”

“ Petitioner, a lineman employed by a 'subcontractor' who had contracted to build more than 25 miles of new transmission lines and to convert from single-phase to double-phase more than 87 miles of existing transmission lines and to construct two substations and a breaker station for the 'owner,' was severely injured by an accident which arose out of and in the course of that employment. Subsequent to his injury he sought and received the full benefits provided by the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Law. ”

“ When, because the plaintiff happens to be a non-resident, such a right is enforceable in a federal as well as in a State court, the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, naturally enough, vary because the two judicial systems are not identic. ”

“ The words 'substantive' and 'procedural' are mere conceptual labels and in no sense talismanic. To call a legal question by one or the other of those terms does not resolve the question otherwise than as a purely authoritarian performance. ”

“ Employee's rights under Title exclude all others against employer.↑ It may be noted that not even petitioner's counsel supports the trial court's theory regarding the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Law.↑ For example, whether or not the defendant had ever itself performed the work contracted out has not been thought to be a conclusive criterion. ”

“ All of respondent's construction work, regardless of who was actually performing it, was done under the supervision of an engineering firm with which respondent has an engineering service contract. Testimony as to the construction of substations was not altogether consistent ”

“ It seems that the trial court submitted this issue, along with others, to the jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff. On appeal the Supreme Court of the State reversed, saying:
'It has been consistently held that whether the claim of an injured workman is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission is a matter of law for decision by the court, which includes the finding of the facts which relate to jurisdiction. ”

“ On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found the District Court's construction of § 72-111 unsupportable under controlling South Carolina decisions. [8] In concluding that respondent had sustained its defense, the appellate court cited the following evidence elicited at trial. Respondent employed a sixteen-man 'outside crew,' two-thirds of whose time was spent in such construction work as building new power lines and extensions ”