Mills v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 21 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38099,38099 |
| Citation | 213 Miss. 171,56 So.2d 485 |
| Parties | MILLS et al. v. BARRETT. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Snow & Covington, Meridian, for appellants.
Hardy Lott, Greenwood, for appellee.
This is a companion case to the case of Mills v. Estate of Jones, 56 So.2d 488. The facts there stated are applicable to the instant case. The appellee, Barrett, as a result of serious injuries received in an automobile accident on March 31, 1950 filed claim for compensation against the appellants. The attorney-referee denied compensation, but upon review, the full commission reversed his decision and awarded compensation. The appellant Mills and the insurance carrier appealed to the circuit court of Webster County, where the judgment of the commission was affirmed.
The commission found that under the facts in the case, Barrett was either a servant of Mills in respect to hauling the doors at the time of the accident, or that he was an employee of Jones, a sub-contractor, and that in either event, the appellants would be liable. In determining the liability of appellants, it will not be necessary for us to decide whether or not Barrett was an employee of Mills as it is clear from all the facts in this case and admitted that Barrett was an employee of Jones, the sub-contractor of Mills who was the employer or original contractor as to the special construction work, repairing and painting certain stations owned by the Standard Oil Company.
The appellants argue that even though Barrett was an employee of Victor L. Jones, they would not be liable under Section 4, paragraph 3, Chapter 354, Laws of 1948, of the Workmen's Compensation Law, which provides: 'In the case of an employer who is a subcontractor, the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of such compensation to employees of the subcontractor unless the subcontractor has secured such payment.'
Counsel for appellants contend that Jones was not an employer subject to the provisions of the act for the reason that he did not employ as many as eight persons. In this case, Jones was not the original contractor or employer, but a subcontractor of Mills within the meaning of the act. Section 3 of the act sets out what shall constitute employers, which provides, in part, as follows:
'Every person, firm and private corporation, including any public service corporation, but excluding, however, all nonprofit charitable, fraternal, cultural or religious corporations or associations, that has in service eight or more workmen or operatives regularly in the same business, * * *.
'Domestic servants, farmers and farm labor are not included under the provisions of this act, but this exemption does not apply to the processing of agricultural products when carried on commercially.
'Employers exempted by this section may come within the act by insuring, posting notice on their premises, and notifying the Workmen's Compensation Commission that they have accepted the provisions of the law.'
Section 4 of the same act provides, in part, as follows: 'Every employer to whom this act applies shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under its provisions.' This paragraph refers to employers as defined in Section 3 as those that have in service eight or more workmen, or those who elect to come within the provisions of the compensation act.
Mills elected to come under the act and procured a policy of insurance from appellant insurance carrier, which was in full force and effect at the time of the accident here involved. The question presented here is the construction of paragraph 3, Section 4 of the Compensation Act, Chapter 354, Laws of 1948, quoted above.
The evidence shows without dispute that Jones carried no insurance for the protection of his employees. We are of the opinion that Barrett, an employee of Jones, the subcontractor of Mills, the principal or general contractor, comes within the provisions of the above quoted paragraph of the compensation law. The language is plain, clear, and unambiguous, and has the effect of making the employees of a subcontractor, where the subcontractor does not carry insurance for the protection of his employees, the employees of the principal or general contractor within the meaning of the compensation act. It is obvious that the purpose of the legislature was to prevent the general contractor from escaping liability by employing subcontractors who were not financially responsible and leaving the employees unprotected. The purpose of this provision is stated in 58 Am.Jur., Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 139, pp. 672-673: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamar v. Thomas Fowler Trucking, Inc.
...with financially irresponsible employers; secondly, it protects the employees of financially irresponsible subcontractors.5 Mills, 56 So.2d at 485. These policy concerns will not be served if a subcontractor is allowed to evade liability under the Act. We do not see how the Act, which was d......
-
Vance v. Twin River Homes, Inc., 92-CC-1032
...Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 71-3-7 (1989). Doubleday v. Boyd Construction Co., 418 So.2d 823 (Miss.1982); see also Mills v. Barrett, 213 Miss. 171, 56 So.2d 485 (1952). Should the subcontractor fail to secure such payment, the employees of that subcontractor may thereby be characterized as the "sta......
-
International Paper Co. v. Wilson, 42198
...case; and the claimant's right to compensation for that injury was not affected by the provisions of the 1960 statute. Mills et al. v. Barrett, 213 Miss. 171, 56 So.2d 485; Havens v. Natchez Times Publishing Company, 238 Miss. 121, 117 So.2d For the reasons stated above the judgment of the ......
-
Doubleday v. Boyd Const. Co., 53239
...subcontractor Chaney had failed to secure compensation insurance for his employees. 224 Miss. at 732, 80 So.2d at 821. Mills v. Barrett, 213 Miss. 171, 56 So.2d 485 (1952), dealt with a similar factual situation in that the subcontractor did not provide workmen's compensation insurance for ......