Jackson v. United Cigar Stores Co.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1934
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 225.
• Citation: 228 Ala. 220,153 So. 422
• Parties: JACKSON v. UNITED CIGAR STORES CO. et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

153 So. 422

228 Ala. 220

JACKSON v. UNITED CIGAR STORES CO. et al.

6 Div. 225.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 8, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injury by Cleophus Jackson, a minor suing by his next friend, Robert Jackson, against the United Cigar Stores Company, United Cigar Company, and United Cigar Stores. On account of adverse ruling on pleading, overruling demurrer to defendant's pleas, plaintiff takes a nonsuit and appeals.

Affirmed.

A. L King, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Lange Simpson & Brantley, of Birmingham, for appellees.

FOSTER Justice.

This is an action brought under the Employers' Liability Act (Code 1923, §§ 7598-7601), and defendant pleaded the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1923, §§ 7534-7597). If the latter prevails, the former, of course, does not. Georgia Casualty Co. v. Haygood, 210 Ala. 56, 97 So. 87; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co v. Greek, 211 Ala. 95, 99 So. 791.

The specific question is whether the defendant "regularly employs less than sixteen employees in any one business" (that is, the one business in which plaintiff was employed). Sections 7543, 7596 (d), Code. If so, it is not under the Workmen's Compensation Act in that business, but the Employers' Liability Act has application. The pleas 6, 7, and 8 are intended to allege facts which show that more than sixteen employees were regularly employed by it in its one business. The demurrer of plaintiff was overruled. They are treated in argument as altogether presenting but one question, and we will so consider them.

They show that the employer operates as one business three stores in Alabama, one each in Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile; that the aggregate number of employees in the three stores exceeds sixteen, but that each has less than sixteen, including that which is located in Birmingham, where plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and arising out of it.

The question is determined by the meaning of the words, "in any one business," as used in the statute in respect to such stores. The employer owned and operated them all, the whole managed from headquarters in Atlanta, Ga. The pleas allege that they all constituted one business. That statement, however, would not be conclusive, if they and the complaint taken together had a different meaning. But when there is a situation where one owner conducts various units of his one business in different places, it may be that they are properly classed as one business. As we understand the pleas, they show that all the units are engaged in the same character of business, in the same way, and all owned and operated by the same corporation, the only difference being the place of business, with different employees. So considered, they are all units of one business and not separate business enterprises.

On the other hand, a single...