Maxwell v. Beck
| Citation | 87 S.W.2d 564 |
| Parties | MAXWELL v. BECK. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1935 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Goins & Gammon, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
Chamlee & Chamlee, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
John Beck brought this suit against E. G. Maxwell and Louis Vetter under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1932, § 6851 et seq.) to recover compensation for injuries received in the course of his employment. The trial judge dismissed the suit as to Louis Vetter, but rendered judgment against Maxwell in the sum of $362.90 and costs. Maxwell has appealed to this court and assigned errors.
The record discloses that Maxwell had the contract to erect a building in the city of Chattanooga, and subcontracted the plastering and stucco work to Louis Vetter. Beck was employed by Vetter as a plasterer on the building, and while engaged in such work, as Vetter's employee, was injured by the breaking of a ladder. Beck received his working directions, orders, and pay from Vetter, and not from Maxwell.
Maxwell let several portions of the construction work to subcontractors, but retained other portions to be performed by himself, and, in this connection, had over five employees working directly under him. Vetter had only four employees working under him on this building.
Section 15 of the Act (Code § 6866) is as follows:
To limit the liability thus created to cases where the immediate employer is liable under the act, would place it within the power of the principal contractor to evade the act by letting the work to subcontractors who would stay beyond the reach of the statute by employing less than five persons and not electing to accept the act. Such construction would be hostile to the very purpose and intent of the act.
The Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial, intended to burden industry with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wormsley v. Consolidation Coal Company
...S.W.2d 721 (1963); Clendening v. London Assur. Co., 206 Tenn. 601, 606-607, 336 S.W.2d 535, 337 S.W. 2d 603 (1960); Maxwell v. Beck, 169 Tenn. 315, 317, 87 S.W.2d 564 (1935). 1 Appellant will be referred to herein as Consolidation; and appellee will be referred to as Clyde. ...
-
Gateway Const. Co. v. Wallbaum
...Company, 204 Okl. 277, 229 P.2d 193; Doherty's Case, 294 Mass. 363, 2 N.E.2d 186, 105 A.L.R. 576. Wallbaum relies on Maxwell v. Beck, 169 Tenn. 315, 87 S.W.2d 564, wherein it was assumed that the employee of the subcontractor had elected to accept the Workmen's Compensation Act. The languag......
-
Smith v. Tennessee Furniture Industries, Inc.
...the employer. In the case of Partee v. Memphis Concrete Pipe Company, 155 Tenn. 441, 295 S.W. 68, approved by the case of Maxwell v. Beck, 169 Tenn. 315, 87 S.W.2d 564, and other cases, it is 'The legislation is remedial, intended to burden industry with the responsibility of industrial acc......
-
Posey v. Union Carbide Corp.
...disclaimed liability because the injured claimant was employed by a subcontractor who had less than five employees. In Maxwell v. Beck, 169 Tenn. 315, 87 S.W.2d 564 (1935), the Supreme Court of Tennessee To limit the liability thus created to cases where the immediate employer is liable und......