Cameron v. J. C. Lawrence Leather Company

Decision Date29 June 1960
Citation47 Tenn.App. 671,342 S.W.2d 65
PartiesDouglas CAMERON, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER CO., Defendant in Error. 47 Tenn.App. 671, 342 S.W.2d 65
CourtTennessee Court of Appeals

[47 TENNAPP 672] Porter & Porter, Newport, for plaintiff in error.

Edward F. Hurd, Newport, for defendant in error.

McAMIS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Cameron was discharged as an employee of defendant J. C. Lawrence Leather Company upon the basis of medical findings that a congenital anomaly in his back predisposed him to accidental injury while performing the duties regularly assigned to him. He thereupon instituted this suit to recover for breach of a collective bargaining agreement between defendant and the International Fur and Leather Workers Union of which plaintiff is a member.

The Circuit Judge, sitting without a jury, dismissed the suit and plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff at the time of this discharge was 26 years of age and had been an employee of defendant for several years. Except for the defect in his back which he had at birth he was in sound health and capable of doing the heavy lifting required by his employment. The undisputed medical proof shows that he has an abnormal or 'false' joint between the last vertebra and the posterior part of the pelvis bone which was not discovered by defendant until he was re-examined upon being called back to work following a lay-off due to slack work.

[47 TENNAPP 673] Plaintiff's physician testified that this condition did not interfere with his ability to perform his duties but that he could not predict, 'whether his back will be strained or hurt by similar falls and similar strains to a person without that anomaly'; that he 'would be more likely to have strain or something like that, but not much more.'

The weight of the proof, however, is to the effect that the condition of plaintiff's back is permanent; that it predisposes him to injuries to which a person with a normal back would not be subjected; that, in fact, it would be dangerous for him to continue in this type of work and that defendant was so advised by competent physicians who based their opinion upon X-ray pictures and a thorough physical examination. We are convinced that defendant acted in good faith and upon the basis of medical findings. In doing so, was it within its rights under the contract?

Section 1 of Article III of the contract provides:

'The Management of the plant and the direction of the working forces, promotions and demotions, including the right to hire, suspend, discharge for just cause, to assign to jobs, to transfer employees within the plant, to increase and decrease the working force, to determine products to be handled, produced or manufactured, the schedule of production and methods, process and means of production or handling, is vested exclusively in the Company, provided this will not be used for the purpose of discriminating against any employee or to avoid any of the provisions of this Agreement.'

Under Section 3 of Article X the Company is given the right to discharge any employee 'for just cause'. [47 TENNAPP 674] There is no provision expressly controlling the right to discharge an employee because of physical disability.

The law in this State is that a contract for personal services is terminated by the permanent disability of a servant rendering him unable to perform his contract, unless the parties have contracted to the contrary. Greenwood v. National Biscuit Company, Inc., 175 Tenn. 302, 134 S.W.2d 149; American National Insurance Company v. Jackson, 12 Tenn.App. 305.

If not controlled by the terms of the contract, whether the contract is to be regarded as terminated depends on the facts of the particular case whether the disability is temporary or permanent and the nature...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Fisher v. Church of St. Mary, 4075
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 7, 1972
    ...the employee and his ability to do the work. This question was considered to be one for the jury. See also Cameron v. J. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 47 Tenn.App. 671, 342 S.W.2d 65, 66. ...
  • Strackbein v. Fall River County Highway Dept.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • September 4, 1987
    ...conditions may or may not affect work performance and serve as the grounds for termination of employment. Cameron v. J.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 47 Tenn.App. 671, 342 S.W.2d 65 (1960) (laborer who performed heavy lifting and had congenital back anomaly was predisposed to injuries and could b......
  • Moreno v. Jazzabi
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • July 29, 2022
    ......Life &Cas. Co., 667. S.W.2d 79, 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Cameron v. J. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 342 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tenn. Ct. App. ......
  • Conn v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 22, 2021

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