The Supreme Court is reviewing a case where a petitioner sued a corporation for damages due to alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals erred in directing judgment for the respondent without allowing the petitioner to introduce further evidence. The Supreme Court is considering whether the petitioner is entitled to a jury determination of the factual issues raised by the respondent's defense that the petitioner was a statutory employee under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. The trial judge erred in his interpretation of the statute, and the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court's interpretation. The Supreme Court accepted the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statute, which grants the respondent immunity from the action if the respondent's own crews had constructed lines and substations that were necessary for the distribution of electric power. The petitioner is entitled to a trial court determination of the fact question, even if they offer no proof of their own. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the decision of other questions, and if necessary, the Court of Appeals shall remand the case to the District Court for a new trial of such issues as the Court of Appeals may direct.

The South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Law provides an exclusive plan for employers to compensate their employees for work-related injuries. The South Carolina Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over claims under the Act, subject to appeal for errors of law. Section 72-111 expands the definition of "employee" and "employer" to include situations where an owner of premises contracts with a subcontractor. In this case, the petitioner was a lineman employed by a subcontractor who had contracted with the owner to perform work on transmission lines and substations. The petitioner was injured on the job and received benefits under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Law. The Court of Appeals overturned the district judge's interpretation of § 72-111, finding that the contracted work was a part of the respondent's trade, business, or occupation, making the petitioner a statutory employee. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to it for a decision on other questions not previously addressed. The author agrees that the district judge erred in striking the respondent's jurisdictional defense and supporting evidence from the record. However, the author argues that the Court of Appeals' judgment directing the District Court to enter judgment for the respondent would deprive the petitioner of his legal right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the respondent's prima facie established jurisdictional defense. The author contends that the petitioner had not waived his right to adduce rebuttal evidence upon the issue of respondent's jurisdictional defense and that the Court of Appeals' judgment cannot stand.

The case involves a lineman who was injured while connecting equipment in a new substation. The cooperative that distributed electric power argued that the lineman was their statutory employee and therefore not liable for his injury. The court granted the lineman's motion to strike the defense and denied the cooperative's motion for a directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the lineman for $126,786.80. However, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court's interpretation of the state law was incorrect. The respondent was in the business of supplying electricity and constructing necessary infrastructure, making them a statutory employer under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Law. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter judgment for the respondent. The determination of whether a defendant is an employer depends on the entire relationship between the defendant and the work being done.

Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opinion, agrees with Justice Frankfurter's dissenting opinion and adds two more reasons why he believes the Court of Appeals' judgment should be affirmed. He argues that the respondent would be liable to the petitioner for compensation as his statutory employer under South Carolina law, as the construction of facilities necessary to transmit electric power is part of the business of furnishing power. Justice Harlan believes that any further evidence presented by the petitioner would not change the result reached by the Court of Appeals, as there is no dispute that the respondent was engaged in the business of furnishing power and the petitioner was injured while engaged in construction in furtherance of that business. He suggests that the petitioner should provide some evidence of the character of the further evidence he expects to introduce before the judgment is disturbed. It is important to note that Justice Harlan believes that the Court of Appeals correctly held the respondent liable, and any further evidence presented by the petitioner would not change the outcome.