Maxwell v. Beck

• Decision Date: 23 November 1935
• Citation: 87 S.W.2d 564,169 Tenn. 315
• Parties: MAXWELL v. BECK.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

87 S.W.2d 564

169 Tenn. 315

MAXWELL v. BECK.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 23, 1935

Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; L. D. Miller, Judge.

Suit by John Beck against E. G. Maxwell and another to recover compensation.Judgment was entered for plaintiff against defendant named, and defendant named appeals in error.

Affirmed.

Goins & Gammon, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Chamlee & Chamlee, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.

DE HAVEN, Justice.

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 plastering 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:

"A principal, or intermediate contractor, or subcontractor shall be liable for compensation to any employee injured while in the employ of any of his subcontractors and engaged upon the subject matter of the contract to the same extent as the immediate employer. ***

"Every claim for compensation under this section shall be in the first instance presented to and instituted against the immediate employer, but such proceedings shall not constitute a waiver of the employee's right to recover compensation under this chapter from the principal or intermediate contractor, provided that the collection of full compensation from one employer shall bar recovery by the employee against any others. ***

"This section shall apply only in cases where the injury occurred on, in, or about the premises on which the principal contractor has undertaken to execute work or which are otherwise under his control or management."

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 responsibility of industrial accidents by requiring compensation to injured employees, and is to be applied fairly and broadly to accomplish the ends intended.Cherokee Brick Co. v. Bishop,156 Tenn 168, 299 S.W. 770;Partee v. Memphis Concrete...