Mann v. City Of Lynchburg
Decision Date | 17 March 1921 |
Citation | 106 S.E. 371 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | MANN. v. CITY OF LYNCHBURG. |
Questions Certified from the Industrial Commission.
Claim by Willie H. Mann against the City of Lynchburg or the Commonwealth of Virginia for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Lee Arthur Mann. On questions certified by the Industrial Commission. Questions answered, and claimant denied compensation.
N. C. Manson, of Lynchburg, John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., and J. D. Hank, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for city of Lynchburg and the Commonwealth.
The Industrial Commission of Virginia, pursuant to the provision of section 61 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1918, p. 637), has certified to this court for its decision certain questions of law arising in the above entitled proceeding.
We quote as follows from the certificate of the commission:
From the briefs of counsel for the city of Lynchburg and the commonwealth of Virginia it appears to be agreed that no question is to be raised by either of the defendants as to the right of the claimant, Willie H. Mann, to recover from one or the other. The necessary result Is that for the purposes of this case both defendants concede that Policeman Mann was an employee either of the city or the state, within the meaning of the statute. Upon such concession, eliminating any consideration of the statutory definition of an employee, we answer that in our opinion, as between the two defendants, the city of Lynchburg, as the party "using the services for pay, " would be liable for the compensation conceded to be due from one or the other of the parties.
If this were a question between private persons or corporations, we might well stop where the briefs of counsel stop, and refrain from passing upon the question as to whether either of the defendants are liable for the compensation claimed. The question, however, is one of a public nature, and we feel that we should answer it as fully as if it had been submitted to us without the limitation above indicated.
Section 2 of the act, so far as pertinent, is as follows:
The statute is to be liberally construed to the end that its wise and humane purpose may be advanced; but we cannot extend its provisions by construction, so as to cover persons or occupations not within its scope and intent.
The act, as its title shows, relates to industrial accidents, and its well-known purpose was to substitute for the unsatisfactory common-law remedies a speedier and simpler and more equitable form of relief for personal injuries sustained by persons engaged in hazardous occupations. It would seem clear from the history and purposes and general provisions of the act that the Legislature did not have in mind as beneficiaries any other persons than such as are commonly understood as falling within a contractual relationship of master and servant. It often happens that cities and towns employ large forces of men in connection with municipal undertakings, such as the construction of sewers, the building of streets, the operation of rock quarries, and other similar and more or less hazardous occupations akin to those undertaken by individuals and industrial corporations. The Legislature undertook to make an improvement upon the remedies hitherto existing in cases of employees receiving personal injuries, and who might or might not, according to the particular facts of the case, have a cause of action against the employer on the ground of negligence or breach of duty, and manifestly the idea was that this remedy should be provided for those who theretofore stood in such a relationship as that there might be in cases of negligence a liability on the employer. Griswold v. Wichita, 99...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jeffreys v. Uninsured Employer's Fund
...65-67, 129 S.E. 330 (1925) ; Board of Supervisors v. Lucas , 142 Va. 84, 94-95, 128 S.E. 574 (1925) ; Mann v. City of Lynchburg , 129 Va. 453, 459-60, 106 S.E. 371 (1921) (per curiam).8 See Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. , 284 Va. 677, 682, 733 S.E.2d 648 (2012) ; Roller v......
-
Hayes v. Bd. Of Trustees Of Elon Coll.
...Ala. 162, 149 So. 74; McDonald v. City of New Haven, 94 Conn. 403, 109 A. 176, 10 A.L.R. 193; Mann v. City of Lynchburg, 129 Va. 453, 454, 106 S.E. 371; 71 C.J. 417. One who seeks to avail himself of the Act must come within its terms and must be held to proof that he is in a class embraced......
-
Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College
... ... sidewalk in front of a building for a lump sum, City of ... Independence v. Slack, 134 Mo. 66, 34 S.W. 1094; a ... farmer who agrees to haul a boiler ... 20] v. City of New ... Haven, 94 Conn. 403, 109 A. 176, 10 A.L.R. 193; Mann" ... v. City of Lynchburg, 129 Va. 453, 454, 106 S.E. 371; 71 ... C.J. 417 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Hord
...972; State ex rel. Randel v. Scott, 95 Ohio App. 197, 118 N.E.2d 426; Morris v. Parks, 145 Or. 481, 28 P.2d 215; Mann v. City of Lynchburg, 129 Va. 453, 106 S.E. 371; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 331 U.S. 416, 67 S.Ct. 1274, 91 L.Ed. In the last cited case......