Gibbons v. Roller Estates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1931 |
| Citation | 43 S.W.2d 198 |
| Parties | GIBBONS v. ROLLER ESTATES, Inc. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
T. R. Bandy, of Kingsport, for complainant.
Worley, McAmis & Hauk, of Kingsport, for defendants.
This is a compensation case brought by the mother of one Claude Gibbons, who received injuries from which he died, while working for Roller Estates, Inc. The chancellor made an award to the mother as a partial dependent, and the defendant below appealed in error.
Roller Estates, Inc., operates farms and a dairy, and also owns and operates an office building in the town of Kingsport. Certain of the offices were being repainted, and the boy was going before the painters cleaning the walls of the rooms with gasoline. He seemed to have been supplied with a bucket of gasoline and rags. During this work, the boy went to a toilet in the building, and while he was in there an explosion occurred. It is not known just how the explosion was occasioned. The boy received burns from which he died.
Among other defenses, Roller Estates, Inc., relies on subsection (b) of section 6, chapter 123, Pub. Acts of 1919, providing that the act shall not apply to "any person whose employment at the time of injury is casual, that is, one who is not employed in the usual course of trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer." This defense was overruled by the chancellor, but it seems to us good.
In Murphy v. Gaylord, 160 Tenn. 660, 28 S.W.(2d) 348, 349, the owner of a garage was reconstructing his building. A workman employed about a concrete mixer used in this reconstruction was injured, and made claim under the Compensation Act. The court held that the employer was not engaged in the business or occupation of building, saying:
"The particular work on which the petitioner was engaged at the time of his injury was an incident of the construction, or reconstruction of a building owned or controlled by the employer, the work on which was being done by the employer apart from and independent of the usual course of his trade, business, profession, or occupation."
The suit was accordingly dismissed.
We are unable to take the present case out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D. M. Rose & Co. v. Snyder
...he is within the Act, `although his employment itself is casual as distinguished from regular employment.' Gibbons v. Roller Estates, Inc., 163 Tenn. 373, 376, 43 S.W.2d 198, 199. One so engaged is within the Act, though his employment itself is casual and of but a few hours duration. Parks......
-
Lamont v. Intermountain Realty Co.
... ... 805; ... Murphy v. Gaylord, 28 S.W.2d 348; Gibbons v ... Roller Estate, Inc., 42 S.W.2d 198; Carsten v ... Department, ... Michigan case was cited with approval in Gibbons v ... Roller Estates, (Tenn.) 163 Tenn. 373, 43 S.W.2d 198. In ... that state the statute ... ...
-
Barber v. Los Alamos Beverage Corp.
...v. Clarke, 171 Md. 39, 187 A. 887, 107 A.L.R. 924, 933; Orr v. Boise Cold Storage Co., 52 Idaho 151, 12 P.2d 270; Gibbons v. Roller Estates, 163 Tenn. 373, 43 S.W.2d 198; Sommerville v. Industrial Comm., 113 Utah 504, 196 P.2d 718; compare, County of Leon v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 171, 9 So.2d Fur......
-
McDonald v. Dunn Const. Co.
...as it has been construed in a number of our cases. For example, Murphy v. Gaylord, 160 Tenn. 660, 28 S.W.2d 348; Gibbons v. Roller Estates, Inc., 163 Tenn. 373, 43 S.W.2d 198; Parks v. E. M. Carmell Co., 168 Tenn. 385, 79 S.W.2d 285; United States Rubber Products Co. v. Cannon, 172 Tenn. 66......