State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

NOURSE, P. J.

The petitioner is the insurance carrier of the city and county of San Francisco, the employer of one G. S. Paizes, who was instantly killed in an explosion upon the work being conducted by the water department of the city near the town of Sunol. Spiros Paizes and the deceased were first cousins. The former was married and lived in San Francisco with his wife and four children. An unmarried brother of Spiros lived with him, paying $45 a month for board and room. Spiros conducted a barbershop from which he earned from $100 to $140 per month upon which, for many years past, he had supported his family. In January, 1930, the deceased came to live with Spiros and he too paid $45 a month for board and room. This relation continued for three months when, in April, 1930, the deceased moved to Sunol and entered the employment of the city, where he remained until June 8th, the date of his death/

During his residence with the Paizes family the deceased became attached to the two younger children—a boy of seven and a girl of five years—and contributed considerable sums to their support. After he moved to Sunol he sent two checks to Spiros—one for $57.75 and another for $62.25. These checks were cashed by Spiros and the proceeds were turned over to his wife. Upon the testimony of Spiros alone as to an oral agreement of the deceased to adopt and care for these minors, and as to the disposition of the funds received from the deceased the Commission concluded that these two minors were dependents of the deceased to the extent of $1200 a year and awarded the full sum of $3,600 to the father “to be received by him in his own right and disbursed in his own discretion for such purpose” (the support of said minors). In this proceeding the petitioner insists that the evidence fails to show that the minors were dependents within the meaning of the Compensation Act and that they were not members of the same family or household.

We are compelled to agree with petitioner that there is no evidence to support the amount of the award made and hence we will confine our discussion to that subject. Section

[331]

21 of article XX of the Constitution permits the enactment of a Workmen’s Compensation Act for the benefit of “all workmen and

those dependent upon them for support