Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goode Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 496. |
| Citation | 97 F. Supp. 316 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. et al. v. GOODE CONST. CO. |
Paul R. Connolly (Hogan & Hartson), Washington, D. C., F. Sheild McCandlish, (McCandlish & Pritchard), Fairfax, Va., for plaintiffs.
Frank L. Ball, Arlington, Va., E. Willard Hyde, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
Acceptance from the subcontractor of workmen's compensation under the law of the District of Columbia by Budano, an employee of the subcontractor, for an injury suffered while at work on a construction contract in Virginia does not, me judice, bar this action by him, his subrogee and assignee, to recover damages against the general contractor for the latter's negligence, alleged as the cause of the injury, notwithstanding that under the Virginia compensation law the action is not maintainable.
In the District of Columbia Budano resided, his employer resided and his contract of employment was made. The courts in Virginia, including the Federal tribunals, may treat the District of Columbia law, with its privilege of suing the general contractor, as a constituent of Budano's contract of employment. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 52 S. Ct. 571, 76 L.Ed. 1026; Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Comm., 294 U.S. 532, 55 S.Ct. 518, 79 L.Ed. 1044. To an accident happening within her boundaries Virginia has unhesitatingly given efficacy to the compensation law of the State of the injured's residence, even when materially at variance with her own law. Solomon v. Call, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467. Such an action does not offend Virginia's public policy. Hynes v. Indian Trails, 7 Cir., 181 F. 2d 668; Solomon v. Call, supra, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467, 469. Indeed, she projects her own compensation laws beyond her marches on the premise that Virginia is the residence of the employer and employee, as well as the locus contractus. Va.Code 65-58.
It is suggested that the Virginia compensation act, by its terms, became automatically and presumptively operative upon the happening of the injury, because Budano was working, and his misfortune befell him, in Virginia. If so, my conclusion is not altered. Compensation statutes are not mutually nullifying and exclusive; either may be embraced by the parties, in the absence of a positive assertion of jurisdiction by the State of the place of the accident. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper suggests that the apparent conflict between the consequences of the Virginia law and the law of the District of Columbia might readily be reconciled, by giving the force of her law to the Virginia employees and the shape of the District statute to those employees, including the plaintiff, residing and making their contracts there. 286 U.S. 145, 162, 52 S.Ct. 571, 76 L.Ed. 1026. But the conclusive answer is that Virginia has not undertaken to adjudicate Budano's compensation, none of the persons in interest having sought her aid, and his award, therefore, does not bear the impress of Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 186 Va. 116, 41 S.E.2d 469, denying him a right of action against the general contractor. We are thereby saved, too, the further troublesome question as to which jurisdiction should make the adjudication. Cf. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 306 U.S. 493...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Faull
...cases are to the contrary. Miller v. Yellow Cab Co., 308 Ill.App. 217, 31 N.E.2d 406 (App.Ct.1941); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Goode Construction Co., 97 F.Supp. 316 (D.C.E.D.Va.1951); cf. Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co., 169 Wis. 106, 170 N.W. 275, 171 N.W. 935 (Sup.Ct.1919). Most of the......
-
Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Mather
...of his common law negligence liability to the employee for an injury suffered in this jurisdiction. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goode Const. Co., D.C.E.D.Va. 1951, 97 F.Supp. 316, 317, citing Continental Cas. Co. v. Thorden Line, 4 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 992, 996. But see 2 Larson, Workmen's......
-
DiNicola v. George Hyman Const. Co.
...the "employer." It is only the "employer" who can get under the immunity umbrella of § 905. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goode Construction Co., 97 F.Supp. 316, 317 (E.D. Va.1951). In 1972 Congress amended § 905 as it applied to maritime injuries. Prior to these amendments, under the......
-
Braxton v. Anco Elec., Inc.
...have resolved them similarly. See, e.g., Hynes v. Indian Trails, Inc., 181 F.2d 668 (7th Cir.1950); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goode Construction co., 97 F.Supp. 316 (E.D.Va.1951); Miller v. Yellow Cab Co., 308 Ill.App. 217, 31 N.E.2d 406 Both parties argue Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sa......