Anthony v. Lettsome, Civil No. 342/1983
| Decision Date | 30 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 342/1983 |
| Parties | FLOYD ANTHONY, Plaintiff v. AARON LETTSOME, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in an action by plaintiff-employee against defendant-employee for injuries sustained in automobile accident occurring while both parties were on-duty. The District Court, Christian, Chief Judge, held that the immunity granted by the Workmen's Compensation Act does not extend to fellow employees and denied the motion.
DENISE REOVAN, ESQ. (LAW OFFICES OF DESMOND MAYNARD), St. Thomas, V.I., for plaintiff
R. ERIC MOORE, ESQ. (LAW OFFICES OF R. ERIC MOORE), St. Croix, V.I., for defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is the motion of the defendant Aaron Lettsome for summary judgment. As there are no material issues of fact, this matter is ripe for disposition.
The uncontroverted facts reveal that plaintiff and defendant were employees of A. H. Riise Liquors, Inc., at the time of the alleged incident giving rise to this action. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment, was riding in the back of a truck being operated by defendant on behalf of their common employer. Plaintiff claims that he fell from the vehicle and suffered injuries because of the manner in which defendant was operating the vehicle. The defendant admits in his responsive pleading that he was acting within the scope of his employment, agency and authority at the time of the incident giving rise to this action. Defendant seeks summary judgment on the ground that he is exonerated as workmen's compensation is the only remedy available to plaintiffagainst his employer, in whose shoes defendant claims to stand, pursuant to 24 V.I.C. § 284 which provides in pertinent part:
When an employer is insured under this chapter, the right herein established to obtain compensation shall be the only remedy against the employer. . . .
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment plaintiff contends that § 284 inures to the benefit of the employer and his injured employee only. This defendant, argues plaintiff, can gain no comfort from § 284 as he is a "third person" within the meaning of 24 V.I.C. § 263. In part, here pertinent, that section provides:
In cases where the injury . . . entitling the . . . employee . . . to compensation in accordance with this chapter has been caused under circumstances making third persons responsible for such injury . . . the injured . . . employee . . . may claim and recover damages from the third person responsible for said injury . . . .
The Virgin Islands Workmen's Compensation law is a codification of the Kean Workmen's Compensation Act which was enacted by an Ordinance of the Municipal Council of St. Thomas 1954. That Ordinance was taken directly, though in somewhat abbreviated form, from the Workmen's Accident Compensation Act of Puerto Rico, Title 11 of the Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated. The portion of 24 V.I.C. § 263 with which we are concerned is identical in language to that of 11 L.P.R.A. § 32 of the Puerto Rico Act. Berkeley v. West Indies Enterprises, Inc., 10 V.I. 619, 625 (D.V.I. 1973).
Nowhere in the Workmen's Compensation Act of the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico is the term "third person" defined. That the term "third person" may include a co-employee is alluded to in Dallman v. Foster House, Inc., 1978 St. Croix Supp. 183 (March 15, 1978). In Dallman plaintiff brought suit for damages against the corporate employer as well as Evans and Coletti, two financially interested employee-managers of the employer, for injuries suffered by the plaintiff when she allegedly slipped and fell on stairs while employed as a bartender. The Court dismissed the action againstthe employer who was covered under workmen's compensation and, in so doing, stated without discussion that the plaintiff might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tavarez v. Klingensmith
...Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act). Most of the Virgin Islands WCA has been in existence since 1954. See Anthony v. Lettsome, 22 V.I. 328, 329 (D.V.I.1986); 24 V.I.C. ch. 11, historical ann. The Act mandates that "[e]very employer shall pay compensation as ... specified for the disabili......
-
Tavarez v. Klingensmith, CIV.A.1999/212.
...approaches in different jurisdictions). Not surprisingly, appellant relies, in part, on a contrary holding in Anthony v. Lettsome, 22 V.I. 328, 1986 WL 8500 (D.V.I.1986). However, the distinctions in that case also cannot be avoided. There, an employee fell from a vehicle and suffered injur......