Holmes v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 11145.,11145. |
| Citation | 148 S.W.2d 270 |
| Parties | HOLMES v. TRAVELERS INS. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Anderson County; Sam Holland, Judge.
Suit by O. H. Holmes, employee, to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of the Travelers Insurance Company, insurance carrier, and to recover compensation for disability allegedly resulting from injury sustained by employee in course of employment with his employer, the Palestine Creamery Company, a partnership. From a judgment for the insurance carrier, the employee appeals.
Affirmed.
M. M. Guinn, of Rusk, and White & Yarborough, of Dallas, for appellant.
Pinkney Grissom and Thompson, Knight, Harris, Wright & Weisberg, all of Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal in a compensation suit brought by appellant, O. H. Holmes, to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of appellee, Travelers Insurance Company, and to recover compensation for the loss of an eye and for permanent partial disability to his left leg, alleged to have been the result of an injury sustained by him in the course of his employment with the Palestine Creamery Company, a partnership composed of Frank P. and William D. Lacey, who were alleged to have carried compensation insurance with appellee.
Appellee answered by general denial, general demurrer and exceptions. It specially pled that appellant was a farm laborer and as such was excluded from the operation of the compensation laws of the State of Texas. It alleged that the workmen's compensation policy issued to the Palestine Creamery Company covered only the classification of ice cream manufacturing and included only the employees of said company engaged in that occupation and was not intended to and did not cover the operations of the dairy farm on which appellant was employed at the time he received said injuries.
At the close of appellant's evidence, on motion of appellee, the court withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant.
At the time he received the injuries in question, appellant was employed by Frank P. and William D. Lacey as manager of a farm or ranch consisting of between 1,500 and 1,600 acres of land in Anderson County, upon which they conducted a dairy farm. The said Frank P. and William D. Lacey also owned and operated the Palestine Creamery Company, located at Palestine, Texas.
Appellant was injured on said dairy farm while engaged in grinding feed for the cattle under his charge. It is not shown the appellant had any connection with the operation of the Palestine Creamery Company, with the exception of the fact that, on occasions, he had delivered milk to the Creamery Company.
The only question presented for review in this appeal is whether appellant is entitled to recover compensation for the injuries in question under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Texas. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq. The determination of this question depends on the character of work in which he was engaged at the time he received said injuries.
Section 2 of Article 8306, Revised Statutes of 1925, expressly provides, in part, that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law shall not apply to actions to recover damages for personal injuries nor for death resulting from personal injuries sustained by domestic servants, farm laborers, or ranch laborers.
In the case of Gordon v. Buster, 113 Tex. 382, 257 S.W. 220, 221, which arose prior to an amendment of said Section 2 of Article 8306, which at that time did not expressly exclude "ranch laborers", the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Pierson, held that the term "farm laborers", as used in the statute, embraced ranch laborers. In its opinion it said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Le Beau
...a subscriber shall remain a subscriber although the number of employees may thereafter be less than three. In Holmes v. Traveler's Ins. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 270, writ refused, it was held that one performing farm or agricultural labor for another who in fact carried compensation i......
-
Smythe v. Phoenix
... ... bringing it within the exemption clause of the unemployment ... statute are: Holmes v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Tex.) 148 ... S.W.2d 270, in which a dairy farm employe feeding cows was ... ...
-
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Derrick
...engaged. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Carey, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 169 (affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 795); Holmes v. Travelers Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 270; Lloyds Guarantee Assur. v. Anderson, Tex.Civ. App., 170 S.W.2d Moreover, the fact that, on some occasions, when app......
-
In re Liability of Farmers Cooperative Creamery Co.
... ... concerned with the production of milk, butter and cheese, ... hence a dairy farm." Holmes v. Travelers Ins ... Co., (Tex.), 148 S.W.2d 270 ... On the ... pivotal point ... ...