Perkinson v. Thomas
| Citation | 164 S.E. 561 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1932 |
| Parties | PERKINSON et al. v. THOMAS. |
Error to Industrial Commission.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Robert Thomas, claimant, for in juries, opposed by C. H. Perkinson, employer, and the Consolidated Underwriters, insurer. The Industrial Commission awarded compensation to claimant, and employer and insurer bring error.
Reversed and rendered.
Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, EPES, GREGORY, and BROWNING, JJ.
Sinnott, May & Leaman, of Richmond, for plaintiffs in error.
An award of $600 was made by the Industrial Commission against Perkinson and the Consolidated Underwriters, insurer, in favor of Robert Thomas for an injury received by him whereby he lost an eye. Perkinson and the insurer are here complaining of the award. They assign as error the action of the commission in entering the award because there was no evidence to support it.
The case may be (though it does not have to be) considered as upon a demurrer to the evidence. When so considered, the essential facts are that one J. C. Lucye had a contract with Perkinson to sell and deliver logs to the latter on the skidway at his mill. Perkinson agreed to purchase the logs from Lucye when delivered as described for $10 per thousand feet, log measure. In order to secure the logs, Lucye arranged with one Christopher to purchase standing timber on the stump on the latter's land, at $3 per thousand feet. Lucye was to cut. and remove the timber from Christopher's land and deliver it to Perkinson's mill. Under this arrangement, Lucye, with his own equipment and employees of his own selection, began to cut and remove the logs from Christopher's land and to deliver them to Perkinson at. the mill. Among those employed by Lucye for the purpose was Robert Thomas, for whose benefit the award was made. Thomas had been in the employ of Lucye for several years prior to the day when he received the injury and on that day he was employed and working for Lucye. Thomas lost an eye while unloading logs on the skid-way at the mill of Perkinson. Perkinson had no right to exercise any control over Thomas and he did not attempt to supervise the work of Thomas at any time. There was no privity of contract between Perkinson and Thomas and none between Perkinson and Christopher. It was while Lucye had exclusive supervision of Thomas that he (Thomas) lost his eye unloading the logs. The contract between Perkinson and Lucye amounted to no more nor less than a purchase by Perkinson from Lucye, logs to be delivered at the mill at $10 per thousand feet. The method of handling the logs until they were delivered on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giordano v. McBar Indus., Inc.
...And persons who function solely as suppliers and deliverers of goods have been held “other parties.” Perkinson v. Thomas, 158 Va. 699, 164 S.E. 561 (1932); Garrett v. Tubular Prods., Inc., 176 F.Supp. 101 (E.D.Va.1959); see Turnage v. Northern Virginia Steel Corp., 336 F.2d 837, 843 (4th Ci......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Wallace
...Co. v. Franzen, 81 Colo. 161, 254 P. 160, where the opposite conclusion was reached. On the other hand, it was held in Perkinson v. Thomas, 158 Va. 699, 164 S.E. 561, that the proprietor of a saw mill was not required to furnish compensation to the employees of an independent contractor who......
-
Barnhart v. American Oil Company
...of the "statutory employer" doctrine has every heretofore been urged. We prefer to follow the rule enunciated in Perkinson v. Thomas, 158 Va. 699, 164 S.E. 561, wherein an award of compensation benefits was reversed when the injured employee of a seller of logs was held not entitled to comp......
-
Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co.
... ... political divisions of the state, it is not applicable to ... The ... next case is that of Perkinson v. Thomas, 158 S.C ... 699, 164 S.E. 561. That case is not applicable because the ... Court held that the relationship between the parties was ... ...