Nichols v. VVKR, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 901003,901003 |
| Citation | 403 S.E.2d 698,241 Va. 516 |
| Parties | Richard J. NICHOLS v. VVKR, INC., et al. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Frank W. Rogers, III (Mundy, Rogers & Frith, on brief), Roanoke, for appellant.
Murray H. Wright (William L. Thurston, Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer & Tatum, on brief), Richmond, for appellee VVKR, Inc.
No brief or argument for appellees Richard L. Williams, Richard L. Williams Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Heindl-Evans, Inc.
Present: All the Justices.
In this case we consider whether an injured employee and an allegedly negligent architectural and engineering firm are statutory fellow employees under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, Code §§ 65.1-1, et seq., thereby barring a common law negligence action by the injured employee against the firm.
The Campbell Court Transportation Station/Mini-Mall (the Project) was a construction/rehabilitation project designed to provide public mass transportation facilities, downtown parking facilities, retail and office space facilities, and revitalization and urban redevelopment of a downtown commercial shopping district in the City of Roanoke. The Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) and the City each executed contracts with an architectural and engineering firm, VVKR, Inc., for the provision of services in various phases of the Project. GRTC contracted with Heindl-Evans, Inc. to construct the Project. During the construction, a facade collapsed, injuring Richard J. Nichols, an employee of Heindl-Evans.
Nichols filed a negligence action against VVKR. 1 The trial court sustained VVKR's motion for summary judgment, finding that
GRTC is an agency of the City of Roanoke; the renovation portion of the Project on which the Plaintiff was allegedly injured was a City of Roanoke project ... on which the Plaintiff was employed as a laborer and VVKR was employed as architect. Both VVKR and the Plaintiff were involved in work which is part of the trade, business, or occupation of the City of Roanoke, and are "statutory fellow employees".
Therefore, the trial court held that Nichols' common law negligence action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. We awarded Nichols an appeal.
The dispositive legal principle here is well established: Contractors, subcontractors, and all workers who are engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the owner of a project are deemed to be statutory fellow employees. The remedy for any injury suffered by one of them as a result of the alleged negligence of another, while engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the owner, is limited to that available under the Workers' Compensation Act. Evans v. Hook, 239 Va. 127, 387 S.E.2d 777 (1990); Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 351 S.E.2d 14 (1986); Lucas v. Biller, 204 Va. 309, 130 S.E.2d 582 (1963); Code §§ 65.1-29, -31, -40.
Whether Nichols' and VVKR's actions constituted the Project owner's trade, business, or occupation is a mixed question of law and fact and the answer is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Bassett Furniture v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897, 899, 224 S.E.2d 323, 324 (1976). Unlike our previous cases, the circumstances here require that we first identify the owner of the Project. While the trial court referred to the Project as one "jointly undertaken by the City and GRTC," it did not identify either or both entities as the Project owner. A review of the history of the Project and associated documents contained in the record before us discloses, however, that, while the Project may have been a joint undertaking as characterized by the trial court, GRTC, not the City, was the owner.
The Project, originally called the Roanoke Intermodal Transportation Terminal, was funded by an Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) grant of $2,097,280 to GRTC for the construction of a facility making various transportation services and vehicles accessible to the public. As grantee, GRTC was required to and did acquire the land for the Project in its name. At this point, the Project included some rehabilitation of portions of the property adjoining the transportation facility, which would be utilized as retail space. Subsequently, the City applied for and received a $612,400 grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the balance of the Project's retail rehabilitation component. 2
In April 1981, GRTC executed a contract with VVKR to provide architectural, engineering, design, and construction supervision services for the entire Project, including activities funded by the EDA and UMTA grants. By this time, the Project was called the Transportation Station/Mini-Mall. 3 Apparently in response to the EDA grant requirements that the grantee provide an executed architectural agreement, the City executed a contract with VVKR in August 1981. That contract, although similar to the GRTC-VVKR contract, was limited to services related to the "EDA Rehabilitation Components" of the Project, which were identified as the "restoration, replacement and rehabilitation of buildings on the site and facilities required for the integration of the buildings with the Transportation Station to form the Transportation Station/Mini-Mall complex."
In 1982, the City and GRTC executed an agreement "to establish certain terms and conditions governing the relationship between GRTC and City, with respect to the funding of the project." In that agreement, GRTC and the City provided that GRTC would conduct the bidding and contracting processes for the Project, and "manage and assume responsibility for the construction of and own the project." They also specified that the "City shall have no privity of contract with the project construction contractor and that City shall not be party to or bound by the project construction contract." Finally, the agreement established procedures to insure that the costs of the Project were billed to the appropriate grantee and paid from the appropriate grant monies.
GRTC then executed a contract with Heindl-Evans in November 1982 for the construction of the entire Project. In that contract, GRTC was again referred to as "OWNER." Heindl-Evans employed Nichols as a laborer, and he was injured while he was working on the retail space rehabilitation portion of the Project.
On this record, GRTC must be considered the owner of the Project. The City and GRTC stated in their contract that GRTC was to be the owner of the entire Project, and the City had no contractual relationship with Heindl-Evans and renounced any connection with or responsibility for the construction contract or actual construction of the Project. The City's contractual participation in the Project resulted solely from the EDA grant, which GRTC was ineligible to receive. The City's contract with VVKR was a mechanism to satisfy the terms of the EDA grant, not to exercise control or ownership over the Project, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffreys v. Uninsured Employer's Fund
...or public utility" on the one hand and "a private entity" on the other. Id. at 195, 754 S.E.2d 275 (quoting Nichols v. VVKR, Inc. , 241 Va. 516, 521, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991) ). A private entity, unlike a governmental entity or a public utility, has broad discretion to choose its activities an......
-
Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.
...Gibbs and the Shipyard were therefore statutory co-employees between whom the exclusivity provision applies (citing Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., 241 Va. 516, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991)). We do not agree with that analysis. Code § 65.2–302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perfo......
-
Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc.
...thus bars all actions by statutory employees against their statutory employers and statutory co-employees. See Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., 241 Va. 516, 519, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991) (“Contractors, subcontractors, and all workers who are engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the owner of ......
-
Masterson v. Am. Heavy Indus.
...the controlling factor is not the relationship between the parties but the nature of the activity. As stated in Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., et al., 241 Va. 516, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991) (a "pyramid" case), "many activities may be important to the success of the business, but would not necessarily c......
-
8.1 Introduction
...Cir. 1999).[84] 216 Va. 897, 224 S.E.2d 323 (1976).[85] 223 Va. 363, 288 S.E.2d 489 (1982).[86] 239 Va. 127, 387 S.E.2d 777 (1990).[87] 241 Va. 516, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991).[88] 201 Va. 266, 110 S.E.2d 396 (1959).[89] 238 Va. 471, 384 S.E.2d 618 (1989).[90] 267 Va. 218, 591 S.E.2d 72 (2004).[......
-
2.2 Employer-employee Relationship
...that the governmental entity test "presumes that the owner/contractor has in fact contracted with anther to have work performed").[61] 241 Va. 516, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991).[62] Id. at 521, 403 S.E.2d at 701.[63] Id.[64] Id.; see also C. Richard Bogese Builder, Inc. v. Robertson, 17 Va. App. 7......
-
8.2 Procedural Considerations
...189 F. Supp.2d 450, 454 (W.D. Va. 2002); Lilly v. Strawderman, 64 Va. Cir. 452 (Rockingham 2004).[133] See, e.g., Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., 241 Va. 516, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991).[134] Nolde Bros. v. Chalkley, 184 Va. 553, 561, 35 S.E.2d 827, 830 (1945); see Wilson v. State Highway Comm'r, 174 Va.......