Bosher v. Jamerson
| Citation | 151 S.E.2d 375, 207 Va. 539 |
| Case Date | November 28, 1966 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Page 375
v.
Norvell T. JAMERSON.
J. W. Morris, III, Richmond (Jack B. Russell, Browder, Russell, Little & Morris, Richmond, on brief), for plaintiff in error.
Robert Cantor, Richmond (Willard I. Walker, Cantor & Cantor, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, on brief), for defendant in error.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO and GORDON, JJ.
GORDON, Justice.
We have again the question whether a person who has received workmen's compensation for injuries received during the course of [207 Va. 540] his employment can sue the employer of the tort feasor who caused the injuries.
Norvell T. Jamerson was injured while working for his employer, Re-Com Corporation. The injury happened when Jamerson was struck by a truck owned by Alton W. Bosher and operated by Bosher's employee Fred Granderson. Jamerson applied for and received compensation under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act from his employer, Re-Com Corporation, or its insurance carrier. Then Jamerson brought this tort action against Bosher alleging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Bosher's employee Granderson.
Bosher filed a plea asserting that Jamerson had no right to maintain the action because it was barred by the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act. After hearing evidence, the trial court overruled the plea by order entered June 24, 1963. Bosher appeals from that order. 1
The trial judge made these findings of fact:
'1. Re-Com, as general contractor, was under contract with Reynolds (Metals
Page 376
Company) to construct an expansion of the latter's Container Development Center, under which contract it was expressly stipulated that Re-Com should supply all labor, materials, equipment and services for the job and in connection therewith was to 'receive, unload, warehouse, and haul to the job site, all material you will supply for the work.''2. During the performance of its said contract Re-Com ordered from Southern Materials two loads of sand to be spread beneath the foundation of the project in question. One of these is the load here involved.
'3. Southern Materials had two methods of selling materials, (a) pick up by purchaser at Southern's premises, and (b) delivery by Southern Materials to purchaser at job site. The differential in price was the cost to Southern of delivery to job site. Procedure under method (b) upon reaching job site was to dump or spread at such location and in such manner as directed by purchaser or his representative on the job site.
'4. In the case at bar method (b) was followed.
'5. For delivery of this order--as in the vast majority of all other [207 Va. 541] orders--Southern used a truck and driver furnished by the defendant Bosher. Under the standing arrangement between Bosher and Southern, while Bosher hired, fired and paid the driver of his truck, the driver and truck were under the exclusive control of Sourthern. The driver in this, as in other cases, received his instructions from the Southern dispatcher. Here he was told to deliver his load of sand to the Re-Com job site and to deliver, dump or spread as directed by the Re-Com supervisor.
'6. Upon reaching the job site defendant's driver, Granderson, was told by the Re-Com superintendent to take the load into the foundation area and to spread in a certain manner. He was also told by the superintendent how to maneuver his truck into the foundation area.
'7. During the spreading of the sand Granderson struck and injured the plaintiff.'
Neither party objected to the trial judge's factual findings. We believe it appropriate to amplify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-1853 (D. N.J. 5/4/1999), Civil Action No. 97-1853
...1962), or a person who delivers materials to a construction company and then assists in the construction project, see Bosher v. Jamerson, 151 S.E.2d 375 (Va. 1966), is not an "other This case is similar to facts in Burroughs and unlike those in Floyd and Bosher. While the accident occurred,......
-
Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-1853
...1962), or a person who delivers materials to a construction company and then assists in the construction project, see Bosher v. Jamerson, 151 S.E.2d 375 (Va. 1966), is not an "other This case is similar to facts in Burroughs and unlike those in Floyd and Bosher. While the accident occurred,......
-
Johnson v. Teal, Civ. A. No. 91-00081-A.
...474 U.S. 802, 106 S.Ct. 33, 88 L.Ed.2d 26 (1985); see also Stout v. Onorati, 221 Va. 143, 267 S.E.2d 154 (1980); Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966); Rea, Administratrix v. Ford, 198 Va. 712, 96 S.E.2d 92 (1957); Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 186 Va. 116, 41 S.E.2d......
-
Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc., Civil Action No. 2:13cv155.
...spreading sand at a construction site was engaged in the general contractor's “trade, business or occupation.” Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 540–43, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966). In Bosher, an employee of a material supplier was spreading sand as contractually [995 F.Supp.2d 547]required and as......
-
Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-1853 (D. N.J. 5/4/1999), Civil Action No. 97-1853
...1962), or a person who delivers materials to a construction company and then assists in the construction project, see Bosher v. Jamerson, 151 S.E.2d 375 (Va. 1966), is not an "other This case is similar to facts in Burroughs and unlike those in Floyd and Bosher. While the accident occurred,......
-
Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-1853
...1962), or a person who delivers materials to a construction company and then assists in the construction project, see Bosher v. Jamerson, 151 S.E.2d 375 (Va. 1966), is not an "other This case is similar to facts in Burroughs and unlike those in Floyd and Bosher. While the accident occurred,......
-
Johnson v. Teal, Civ. A. No. 91-00081-A.
...474 U.S. 802, 106 S.Ct. 33, 88 L.Ed.2d 26 (1985); see also Stout v. Onorati, 221 Va. 143, 267 S.E.2d 154 (1980); Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966); Rea, Administratrix v. Ford, 198 Va. 712, 96 S.E.2d 92 (1957); Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 186 Va. 116, 41 S.E.2d......
-
Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc., Civil Action No. 2:13cv155.
...spreading sand at a construction site was engaged in the general contractor's “trade, business or occupation.” Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 540–43, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966). In Bosher, an employee of a material supplier was spreading sand as contractually [995 F.Supp.2d 547]required and as......