Crawford v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 29 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 828,828
• Citation: 141 W.Va. 752,92 S.E.2d 913
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Sanford CRAWFORD v. Virgil PARSONS. C. C.

Page 913

92 S.E.2d 913

141 W.Va. 752

Sanford CRAWFORD v. Virgil PARSONS.

C. C. No. 828.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 11, 1956.

Decided May 29, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. 'The title to an act of the Legislature which amends and reenacts a particular section, article and chapter of the Code by specific reference to them, and which relates to an object as to which, and as to the original section of the Code, the provisions of the act are not foreign, but are congruous and germane and such as might have been incorporated in the section when enacted, and which title is broad enough to give a fair and reasonable indication of the purposes, but does not disclose the details, of the act, satisfies the requirements of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution of this State and is valid.' Point 3, Syllabus, City of Wheeling ex rel. Carter v. American Casualty Co., 131 W.Va. 584 .

2. Section 6a of Article 2 of Chapter 136 of the 1949 Acts of the Legislature, relating to immunity from liability of officers managers, agents, representatives and employees of employers who have elected to subscribe to the workmen's compensation fund, is not violative of due process.

Geo. R. Farmer, Morgantown, for plaintiff.

Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, David D. Johnson, Charleston, for defendant.

GIVEN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Sanford Crawford, instituted his action against defendant, Virgil Parsons, in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County for recovery of damages alleged to have resulted from negligence of defendant in the operation of an automobile in which plaintiff, at the time of injury, was riding as an invited guest. Defendant filed an amended plea in bar to the declaration and plaintiff demurred to the plea, setting up three grounds of demurrer. The trial court overruled the demurrer as to grounds 1 and 2 and sustained the demurrer as to ground 3. The trial court, on its own motion, certified its rulings on the demurrer to this Court.

The plea alleges that at the time of the injury 'both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were employees of the Isner Baking Company * * * and the Plaintiff was employed as Branch Manager of its Morgantown Branch, being a supervisor of eight men who were employed by the Isner Baking Company, said Isner Baking Company being a large organization employed many other employees, and said Plaintiff, Sanford Crawford, was not an officer nor a stockholder of said Isner Baking Company, a corporation, but was merely an employee for the Isner Baking Company over whom the Isner Baking Company directed the manner of the execution of his service, and could discharge him at will, and the Defendant was employed as its Route Supervisor, and that at the said time of the said happenings mentioned in the Plaintiff's declaration, Plaintiff and Defendant were fellow employees and were engaged in the pursuit of the business of said Isner Baking Company, and that the said Defendant at the said time was operating his said automobile mentioned in the declaration in this case, as the agent and the employee of the said Isner Baking Company, upon company business for the said Isner Baking Company, and that said Plaintiff and Defendant as employees of the said Isner Baking Company were protected by the Workmen's Compensation Law of the state of West Virginia, since their employer Isner Baking Company, was a subscriber to said compensation fund, and that the said Plaintiff has been awarded compensation for the injuries received in the said action mentioned in said declaration, and has accepted payments from said Workmen's Compensation Fund for the aforesaid injuries, and that by virtue of the provisions of the laws of the state of West Virginia the immunity from liability for the matters and things set forth in Plaintiff's declaration extended to this Defendant, * * *'.

The grounds of the demurrer are: '1. Said plea alleges plaintiff was employed by Isner Baking Company as its Morgantown Branch Manager and Section 1, Article 2, Chapter 23, Code, specifically provides that 'Managers' shall not be deemed employees within the meaning of that chapter. 2. Section 6a of Article 2, Chapter 23, Code, extends exemption from liability for injuries to employees who are such employees within the meaning of that chapter. Plaintiff is not such employee. 3. Section 6a, Article 2, Chapter 23, Code, was enacted as a part of Chapter 136, Acts of Legislature of West Virginia of 1949 and is unconstitutional * * *', for the reasons that the purposes thereof are not expressed in, nor germane to, the title of the Act, and therefore are violative of Section 30 of Article VI of the State Constitution; and that the same is violative of the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

Points 1 and 2 of the demurrer may be considered together. They are based principally on the contention that plaintiff was not an employee within the meaning of the compensation statutes and therefore not governed by those statutes and, not being an employee, the provisions of those statutes do not afford immunity from liability to the defendant. Code, 23-2-1, as amended, provides that all persons in the service of employers as therein defined, and employed by them for the purpose of carrying on the industry, business or work in which they are engaged '* * * are employees * * * Provided, however, that this chapter shall not apply * * * [to] a member of a firm of employers, or any official of an association or of a corporation employer, including managers * * *'. Section 6 of Article 2 of the same chapter provides that 'Any employer subject to this chapter who shall elect to pay into the workmen's compensation fund the premiums provided by this chapter shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for the injury or death of any employee however occurring * * *'. Section 6a of Chapter 136 of the 1949 Acts of the Legislature, now Section 6a of Article 2 of Chapter 23 of Michie's 1955 Code of West Virginia, reads: 'The immunity from liability set out in the preceding section shall extend to every officer, manager, agent, representative or employee of such employer when he is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and does not inflict an injury with deliberate intention.'

There appears to be no question that if the facts alleged in the plea do not establish that plaintiff was a 'manager' within the meaning of the pertinent statute quoted above, the trial court was correct in overruling the demurrer as to grounds 1 and 2 thereof. We are of the view that the facts alleged in the plea are sufficient, if proved, to establish that plaintiff was merely an employee, within the meaning of the statute, and that the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer as to grounds 1 and 2 thereof was correct. While the plea describes the position of plaintiff as 'Branch Manager', it also alleges that plaintiff and defendant were 'fellow employees and were engaged in the pursuit of the business' of the employer; that plaintiff was 'merely an employee'; that plaintiff was neither 'an officer nor a stockholder' of the employer; that 'Plaintiff and Defendant as employees * * * were protected by the Workmen's Compensation Law' of West Virginia; and that plaintiff has been 'awarded compensation for the injuries received in said action mentioned in said declaration, and has accepted payments from said Workmen's Compensation Fund for the aforesaid injuries'. While it is true that the plea describes plaintiff as 'Branch Manager' of the employer, the allegations as to the nature of his status as an employee, his duties and his responsibilities, are sufficient to show that he was merely 'Branch Manager' in name or, perhaps, a mere employee with certain fixed duties and responsibilities far short of those of a manager. In West Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 182 S.E. 826, this Court held: '1. Under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1931, 23-2-1), that members of firms and officers, including managers, shall not be included...