Bryson v. Gloucester Lumber Co.
169 S.E. 276
N.C.
1933
Check Treatment
Stacy, C. J.

The case turns on whether Lee M. Bryson was an independent contractor, or a servant or employee of the Gloucester Lumber Company at the time of his injury and death. The Industrial Commission found that he was an employee and awarded compensation, which finding, if supported by any competent evidence, is binding on the courts. Winberry v. Farley Stores, Inc., ante, 79; Webb v. Tomlinson, 202 N. C., 860, 164 S. E., 341.

The judge of the Superior Court, on the other hand, was of opinion that all the evidence tends to show the deceased was an independent contractor. With this view, we are constrained to agree.

Generally speaking, an independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result, but so that in the actual execution of the work he is not under the orders or control of the person for whom he does it, *666 and may use bis own discretion in matters and things not specified. Young v. Lumber Co., 147 N. C., 26, 60 S. E., 654; Gay v. R. R., 148 N. C., 336, 62 S. E., 436; Beal v. Fibre Co., 154 N. C., 147, 69 S. E., 834; Denny v. Burlington, 155 N. C., 33, 70 S. E., 1085; Harmon v. Contracting Co., 159 N. C., 22, 74 S. E., 632.

One who represents another only as to the results of a piece of work, and not as to the means of accomplishing it, is an independent contractor and not a servant or employee. Powell v. Const. Co., 88 Tenn., 696.

Tested by this standard, it would seem that the deceased was an independent contractor, and not an employee of the Gloucester Lumber Company, at the time of his injury and death.

Affirmed.