230 S.C. 532, 96 S.E.2d 566 (1957)
In August 1947 Davison-Paxon Company, operator of a general retail department store in Columbia, South Carolina, accepted a letter proposal from Emporium World Millinery Company to operate the ladies' hat department on the second floor of the Columbia store.1 The letter set a commission of eighteen percent of net sales through October 31, 1947, rising to twenty-four percent thereafter, and incorporated the operating terms already in effect between the same parties at Davison-Paxon's Atlanta, Macon, and Augusta stores.2 An August 1949 letter extended the Columbia arrangement until December 31, 1954, subject to sixty days' prior cancellation notice, and that extension remained in force at the time of the events in suit.3
The millinery department occupied space designated by the store manager without any fixed lease or minimum rental; it was not partitioned from adjacent departments and was operated as one contiguous area with the rest of the store.4 All cash sales proceeds went to the store cashier, credit sales were billed in Davison-Paxon's name, and the store absorbed losses on uncollectible millinery accounts.5 Hats carried the Davison's label, boxes were marked Davison's, and all advertising and window displays used only the store name.6 Emporium's Columbia manager was hired and paid directly by Emporium, but the respondent saleslady was employed only after approval by the store manager, was paid her salary by Davison-Paxon, and the store was reimbursed by Emporium.7
After falling on the basement stairway, the respondent filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation benefits with the Industrial Commission, listing herself as an employee of Davison-Paxon.8 She later commenced this negligence action against Davison-Paxon for maintenance of the stairway and asked that the compensation claim be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the tort suit.9
The respondent recovered a money judgment against Davison-Paxon in the Court of Common Pleas.10 Davison-Paxon appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.11
Whether the respondent's exclusive remedy for injuries sustained on the department store premises was under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that Emporium World Millinery Company performed part of the trade, business, or occupation of Davison-Paxon Company?12
Section 72-111 of the South Carolina Code of 1952 addresses statutory employers.13 When any person undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the work any compensation under this Title which he would have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him.14 This statutory employer status renders the common-law tort remedy unavailable.15 The injured worker is confined to the exclusive remedy of the Workmen's Compensation Act under Section 72-121.16
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that Emporium performed part of Davison-Paxon's trade, business or occupation, making Davison-Paxon the statutory employer.17
The 1947 letter agreement accepted by Davison-Paxon, later extended through 1954, placed the millinery department under the store's direct operational control without any lease or fixed rental.18 Space was designated solely by the store manager, the department remained unpartitioned and contiguous with other areas, cash proceeds were deposited with the store cashier, credit sales were billed exclusively in Davison-Paxon's name, and the store absorbed all losses on uncollectible accounts.19
Public identification reinforced integration: hats bore the Davison's label, delivery boxes were marked Davison's, and all advertising and window displays used only the store name.20 Respondent's employment required approval by the store manager, her salary was paid by Davison-Paxon with later reimbursement from Emporium, and she held herself out as a store employee.21
These arrangements establish that the sale of millinery constituted an essential and integral part of the department store's business rather than an ancillary or independent operation.22 The statute's purpose of extending compensation coverage and preventing evasion through subcontracting therefore applies directly, requiring reversal of the tort judgment.23
The respondent's exclusive remedy for her injuries lies under the Workmen's Compensation Act.24 The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be reversed.