Opinion
July 25, 1952.
Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner.
John E. Cicero and Olavi M. Hendrickson, Miami, for appellant.
William J. Wright, Miami, for Clyde Franklin Fulp.
Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission.
The appellee, Clyde Franklin Fulp, was injured while serving as a caddie on the Miami Springs Golf Club course, operated by the City of Miami, and sought compensation. The deputy commissioner denied his claim, but the full commission and the circuit court held a different view.
We are asked to decide whether the caddie was, when hurt, an employee of the city entitling him to compensation for his injuries.
For a determination of the relationship between Fulp and the city, we turn to the record to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the service of one who carried the clubs of a player on the golf course in question. A "separate place" was set aside for the caddies, and here they congregated to await their turn to go upon the links. No one had told Fulp how he should go about the business of serving the golfers, but the caddie master had on occasion instructed inexperienced boys how to perform. Of course the decorum of the caddies was always under the regulation of those in charge of the club. This supervision was not peculiar to them, however; it applied as well to all who came upon the property, including the players.
According to the claimant's own testimony the club exercised no control whatever over the compensation of the caddies except for the presence of a sign that gave notice of the fees which they could reasonably expect for various services. This seems to have been erected after clubs in the area had agreed upon the charges that were reasonable. Although the caddies were not privileged to ask more than the amounts appearing on the sign, the eventual remuneration was strictly "up to" the player who could pay more, in which case the excess was considered a gratuity, or less, or none at all, in which cases he would be considered more or less a "heel." But in all events the club took no action to require or even urge payment, had no connection with fees paid, owed or refused. So, as far as wages were concerned, there was no obligation, implied or expressed, from club to caddie.
The manner of the caddies' entering upon their work seems to belie the idea of any hiring by the club. Anyone could report for this service and his doing so was strictly of his own initiative. He could come again as often or seldom as he pleased, or having come, could go and remain away until it suited his fancy to return. The only restrictions or conditions were that he be presentable and conduct himself properly.
As the caddies reported in the morning their names were listed consecutively, and when their services were requested they were called in the order of their appearance. But even this arrangement was subject to the will of the golfer because if he asked for a particular person he was summoned from the pool, regardless of his position on the roster; and if any caddie called in his turn was not acceptable, the player could reject him and choose another.
In the last analysis under the system of which claimant made himself a part, the hiring was done by the golfer. When Fulp was asked if it wasn't actually the player who would engage him, he replied: "That's a tough one, but that's correct." It seems that once a caddie and the player whose clubs he was carrying started the play, the character of the former's execution of his duties was purely the concern of the latter.
If a caddie misbehaved he was not discharged from employment but was expelled from the club grounds.
The nature of the club and its attitude toward caddies generally interlaced all the circumstances we have recounted. The club maintained "caddy carts" in large number and rented them to players. From these a revenue was received, so their use was encouraged, while the club was unenthusiastic about providing caddies. Ninety per cent of those playing the course used the carts for taking their clubs around, so many, in fact, that it was known as a "`caddycart golf course.'" The relative cost was fifteen cents for a cart to two dollars and a half for a caddie.
The maintenance of a "caddy pen" seems to have been more a method of keeping the caddies segregated and controlling them when idle than of encouraging either their appearance or their use.
In this picture which we have endeavored to construct from the testimony of the claimant and the undisputed testimony offered by the city we do not discover the elements of the employer-employee relationship. To summarize, the caddies appeared voluntarily, not through any solicitation by the city. When they came there arose no obligation to furnish work for them, regardless of any favored position on the list. If eventually rewarded by employment for coming and waiting the compensation was strictly the concern of player and caddie. If discharged from actual service, that was done by the player.
So, in the true sense of the words, there was no hiring, firing or compensating by the city, and there was no immediate control once the caddie entered upon his duties.
Against all these facts and circumstances stand only the requirements of neatness in dress and propriety in conduct — the latter common to player and casual visitor.
Such an arrangement did not, in our opinion, constitute a relationship of employment "under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written * * *." Section 440.02, Florida Statutes 1949, and F.S.A.
The order of the circuit court affirming the order of the commission is,
Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.