Brown v. W. H. Patterson Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2765,5-2765 |
| Citation | 235 Ark. 433,361 S.W.2d 14 |
| Parties | Allie Mae York BROWN, Administratrix, et al., Appellant, v. W. H. PATTERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
J. R. Wilson, El Dorado, for appellant.
Riddick Riffel, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Administratrix of the estate of her son, Randal Gene Brown, instituted an action in the Bradley County Circuit Court on behalf of herself, Jesse Brown, father of Randal Gene, and several brothers and sisters of the decedent. The suit was brought against W. H. Patterson and Inodean Patterson, a partnership, d/b/a W. H. Patterson Construction Company, and against Malcolm Browning and William Henry Browning, employees of the company, alleging that Randal Gene, while employed by the construction company, was killed in an accidental injury arising out of his employment. Appellant asserted that Randal Gene Brown's death was caused by the negligence of the servants [Malcolm and William Henry Browning] of Patterson Construction Company and damages were sought in the total sum of $100,000. Patterson Construction Company filed a motion to dismiss, setting up that the Bradley Circuit Court was without jurisdiction for the reason that 'jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Commission.' The two Brownings filed a demurrer to the complaint, asserting that the court was without jurisdiction over the person of those defendants, and that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action against them. No order by the court relative to the demurrer appears in the record, but the court did grant Patterson's motion to dismiss. From the order entered dismissing the complaint as to the Pattersons, appellants bring this appeal.
Admittedly, Randal Gene Brown was an employee of Patterson Construction Company, and was fatally injured in an accident arising during, and out of, his employment. Patterson Construction Company did carry Workmen's Compensation Insurance, and under the provisions of Section 81-1304, Ark.Stats., the rights and remedies of appellant were exclusively under the Workmen's Compensation Law. 1 That section provides in part as follows:
'The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to the provisions of this act, on account of injury or death, shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of such employee, his legal representatives, dependents, or next kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure the payment of compensation, as required by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Pearson Termite and Pest Control, Inc.
...S.W.2d 37. In the absence of any order of the court, we are really not in a position to pass on the question. Brown v. Patterson Construction Co., 235 Ark. 433, 361 S.W.2d 14; Burns v. Local Trademarks, Inc., 222 Ark. 855, 263 S.W.2d 483; North River Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Thompson, 190 Ark. 8......
-
Thomas by City Nat. Bank of Fort Smith v. Valmac Industries, Inc.
...brought by an injured employee. Fore v. Circuit Court of Izard County, 292 Ark. 13, 727 S.W.2d 840 (1987); Brown v. Patterson Constr. Co., 235 Ark. 433, 361 S.W.2d 14 (1962). This so-called exclusivity doctrine arises out of Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-105 (1987), which provides that "[t]he rights......
-
Fore v. Circuit Court of Izard County
...that an employer is immune from liability for damages in a tort action brought by an injured employee. See Brown v. Patterson Construction Co., 235 Ark. 433, 361 S.W.2d 13 (1962). There are a few narrow exceptions to this general rule. Liability on the basis of a wilful and malicious act by......
-
McClain v. Texaco, Inc.
...the Workers' Compensation Commission the authority to determine claims which arise out of employment. See Brown v. Patterson Construction Co., 235 Ark. 433, 361 S.W.2d 14 (1962). In the consideration of a claim for compensation for injuries, the jurisdictional question is a very simple one,......