Herron v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 03 December 1973 |
| Citation | 503 S.W.2d 84 |
| Parties | Kenneth HERRON, Appellant, v. C. W. FLETCHER d/b/a Fletcher Trucking Company et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Hugh W. Morgan, Knoxville, for appellant.
E. Michael Ellis, Knoxville, for C. W. Fletcher.
John K. King, Knoxville, for Interstate Transport and Travelers Indemnity Co.
Jerry A. Farmer, Knoxville, for Hagen, Inc., and Great West Casualty Co.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case which originated in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee, by Kenneth Herron, a truck driver, against C. W. Fletcher, d/b/a Fletcher Trucking Company, Interstate Transport, Inc., and its insurance carrier, Traveler's Indemnity Company, Hagen, Inc., and its insurance carrier, Great West Casualty Company.
The case originally was rather complicated, but the issues were simplified through the action of the Trial Court and counsel for all parties.
The Trial Court entered a judgment for workmen's compensation benefits against Fletcher, Hagen, and Great West Casualty Company.Hagen, Inc. and Great West Casualty Company are appealing the Chancellor's decision, and the petitioner, Kenneth Herron, is appealing in order to 'protect' himself against what this Court might decide.
One question to be decided is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to colllect workmen's compensation benefits from one or more of the defendants.
The other question, a more serious one, is whether or not the petitioner had deviated from his scheduled route so that he would not be entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.
For the most part, the facts presented before the Chancellor were undisputed.C. W. Fletcher owned a fleet of trucks which he leased to Interstate Transport, Inc. on what is known in ICC terminology as a permanent lease.According to the terms of the lease, Fletcher was charged with the responsibility of supplying drivers as well as providing maintenance for the vehicles.
The plaintiff in this suit, Kenneth Herron, was assigned as a driver on one of the trucks leased to Interstate.Interstate arranged for Herron to transport a load of chickens to Minnesota.After making the delivery in Minnesota, Mr. Herron was instructed to wait by both Mr. Fletcher and Interstate in hopes of getting a shipment to return to the Tennessee area with rather than returning empty.
Several days after arriving in Minnesota, Mr. Herron was notified by Mr. Hogan, a dispatcher for Interstate, of a shipment which was to be made from Rice Lake, Wisconsin, to Brock Candy Company in Chattanooga, Tennessee.Herron was told to contact Hagen, Inc., another trucking company, regarding the shipment, which he did.Thereafter Herron signed a trip lease agreement purportedly on behalf of Interstate with Hagan for the shipment of the goods from Wisconsin to Chattanooga.
Herron arrived in Nashville on a Saturday afternoon with the shipment destined for Brock Candy Company in Chattanooga.Being aware of the fact that the candy company was closed and would not be open until Monday, Herron decided to travel to his home base in Lenoir City rather than directly to Chattanooga.The Chancellor concluded in his finding of facts that Herron planned to travel to Lenoir City for the purpose of having routine check-ups performed on his vehicle on Sunday, and in addition he intended to spend Saturday and Sunday nights at home.
While crossing what is known as 'Rockwood Mountain' on the way to Lenoir City, the brakes on Herron's truck failed and an accident resulted.Herron sustained serious personal injuries which resulted in his bringing this action for compensation.
The attorneys for Fletcher and Interstate argued before the Chancellor that the only party liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act to pay benefits to the injured Herron is the party who had control over Mr. Herron's operation at the time of the accident, namely, Hagen, Inc.
Because of the lease arrangement involved, the Chancellor rejected this argument, saying:
'Under the authority of Davis vs. J & B Motors, 193 Tennessee at 233, (245 S.W.2d 769(1951)) our Supreme Court has treated these trucking leases the same as the statute(T.C.A. 50--915) treats prime contractors and subcontractors; that is, that the duty and obligation flows to the benefit of the injured employee against those both prime contractor and subcontractor.'
The Chancellor then concluded that under the authority of Davis v. J & B Motor Lines, supra, that Fletcher and Hagen should be treated as prime contractor and subcontractor, and consequently, that they are jointly liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Herron perfected an appeal to this Court and assigned as error the trial court's conclusion that Interstate was not, along with Fletcher and Hagen, obligated to provide coverage for Herron.Herron does not question the applicability of the prime contractor-subcontractor analogy, but he simply contends that the trial court made a factual error by concluding that Interstate had no business connections with the trip from Wisconsin to Chattanooga, thus, no liability.
Although Interstate arranged for the shipment from Wisconsin to Chattanooga, the Chancellor found as a matter of fact that the company did so as a courtesy to Fletcher and that any money collected belonged soley...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 1
...that it also serves purposes of the employee. Armstrong v. Liles Construction, 215 Tenn. 678, 389 S.W.2d 261 (1956)." Herron v. Fletcher, 503 S.W.2d 84, 87 (Tenn.1973). The precise question whether and under what circumstances an employer is liable for injuries to an employee who is engaged......
-
McCammon v. Neubert
...regardless of whether in the course of benefitting the employer, the journey also serves the purposes of the employee. Herron v. Fletcher, 503 S.W.2d 84, 87 (Tenn.1973). Therefore, recovery of worker's compensation benefits for injuries suffered by an employee who is not on the premises of ......
-
Long v. Stateline Systems, Inc.
...holding the principal contractor liability provision applicable to the contract trucking situation, see, e.g., Herron v. Fletcher, 503 S.W.2d 84 (Tenn.1973); Davis v. J & B Motors, 193 Tenn. 233, 245 S.W.2d 769 (1951), the 1976 amendment, removing common carriers from consideration as the s......
-
Burris v. Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
...law so long as the trip benefits the employer, it does not matter that it also serves the employee's purposes. See Herron v. Fletcher, 503 S.W.2d 84, 87 (Tenn. 1973). Nevertheless, the jury should have been given the opportunity to determine whether the trip benefitted N.T.B., therefore, br......