Amoco Production Co. v. Murphy

Decision Date08 June 1988
Docket NumberNo. 57774,57774
Citation528 So.2d 1123
PartiesAMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY v. Paul B. MURPHY.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Clifford B. Ammons, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellant.

Dixon L. Pyles, Pyles & Tucker, Jackson, W.O. Dillard, Clinton, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court:

This case, involving workers' compensation, comes to the Court from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, which affirmed the award of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission, consisting of medical benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and permanent partial disability benefits. We reverse.

On December 31, 1980, Paul B. Murphy injured his back while pulling land records at the Morgan County Courthouse in Decatur, Alabama. As a result, Murphy complains that his back is weak and painful, precluding heavy lifting, and that his right foot has permanent sensory loss.

The Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission found that Murphy was an employee of W.W. Beckett, an independent oil and gas lease broker, who had hired Murphy to secure leases on behalf of Amoco Production Company. The commission awarded Murphy workers' compensation benefits against Amoco, citing Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 71-3-7 (1972), which reads in part: "In the case of an employer who is a subcontractor, the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of such compensation to employees of the subcontractor, unless the subcontractor has secured such payment."

In Rodgers v. Phillips Lumber Company, 241 Miss. 590, 593, 130 So.2d 856, 857 (1961), quoting V. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Sec. 10 (1957), the Court defined a subcontractor as "one who enters into a contract, express or implied, for the performance of an act with a person who has already contracted for its performance, or who takes a portion of a contract from the principal or prime contractor." Similarly, in O'Neal Steel Co. v. Leon C. Miles, Inc., 187 So.2d 19, 24 (Miss.1966), the Court stated, "The term 'subcontractor' means one who has contracted with the original contractor for the performance of all or a part of the work or services which such contractor has himself contracted to perform." Also, in Frazier v. O'Neal Steel, Inc., 223 So.2d 661, 665 (Miss.1969), the Court said, "In order to constitute a subcontractor ..., it is necessary that there be a contract to construct a part or all of the building contract undertaken by the contractor ...".

More recently, in Falls v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 477 So.2d 254, 258 (Miss.1985), where the National Park Service had issued a "special use permit" to M.P. & L., allowing the power company to clear its right-of-way near the Natchez Trace Parkway, the Court held:

Appellee MP & L was a permittee under the special use permit granted it by the National Park Service and was required to fulfill certain provisions of that permit in order to exercise same. The permit did not constitute appellee/permittee as a general or prime contractor for work to be done by Deviney Company along the right-of-way of appellee pursuant to its contract with appellee. We hold that Deviney Company and its employees were not statutory employees of appellee and that no statutory obligation was imposed upon appellee to provide workmen's compensation coverage for Deviney and its employees.

Again, in Nash v. Damson Oil Co., 480 So.2d 1095 (Miss.1985), Damson Oil, a mineral lessee, hired Trigger Contractors, Inc. to perform various jobs at several oil and gas well sites. When Nash, Trigger Contractor's employee, received an injury, he sued Damson Oil. On appeal, the Court, noting that "Damson is an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 58579
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 2 Agosto 1989
    ...480 So.2d 1095 (Miss.1985) and Falls v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 477 So.2d 254 (Miss.1985); see also Amoco Production Co. v. Murphy, 528 So.2d 1123, 1124 (Miss.1988). That Transco required Singley to procure compensation coverage, "though laudable, does not grant the immunity." Nash, ......
  • Vance v. Twin River Homes, Inc., 92-CC-1032
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 11 Agosto 1994
    ...contracted for its performance, or who takes a portion of a contract from the principal or prime contractor." Amoco Production Co. v. Murphy, 528 So.2d 1123 (Miss.1988). The evidence was clear that Twin River had pre-sold the house under construction to Gary Street, and that Twin River had ......
  • BARRETT REFINING v. MISSISSIPPI COM'N
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 20 Luglio 1999
    ...contracted for its performance, or who takes a portion of a contract from the principal or prime contractor." Amoco Production Co. v. Murphy, 528 So.2d 1123 (Miss.1988). Here, Barrett Refining Corporation entered into a contract with M & S whereby Barrett's employees would process materials......
  • Rollins v. Hinds Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 17 Dicembre 2019
    ...subcontractors are independent contractors, but an independent contractor is not necessarily a subcontractor." Amoco Prod. Co. v. Murphy, 528 So. 2d 1123, 1124 n.1 (Miss. 1988). 3. The contract between Quality Choice and HCSD contains the following clause:INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Nothing in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT