Solomon v. Call
| Decision Date | 17 November 1932 |
| Citation | 159 Va. 625 |
| Parties | BERNARD SOLOMON v. DR. MANFRED CALL AND JOHN CALL. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.
1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Action Against Third Parties — Plea that Plaintiff Had Received Compensation under the Pennsylvania Workman's Compensation Act — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident, which occurred in Virginia. Defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that the action should not be maintained because plaintiff had been awarded compensation for his injuries under the workman's compensation act of Pennsylvania. The lower court allowed the plea and dismissed the action and this ruling of the lower court was assigned as error.
Held: That the acceptance by plaintiff of compensation under the workman's compensation act of the State of Pennsylvania did not preclude him from maintaining an action in Virginia, in tort, against the defendants, who are third parties.
2. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Acceptance of Award under the Workmen's Compensation Act as Bar to Action Against Third Party — Section 1887(12) of the Code of 1930. — The instant case was an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. The accident occurred on the 17th day of September, 1931, in Albemarle county. Defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that the action should not be maintained because plaintiff had been awarded compensation for his injuries under the workman's compensation act of Pennsylvania. Under the Virginia act, Code of 1930, section 1887(12), as it was at the time of the accident involved in this case, the acceptance of an award under it by an employee constituted an election, which under the act, barred him from proceeding against a negligent third person. But an employer who has paid compensation under the act might, in the name of the employee, maintain an action against a negligent third person for injuries inflicted upon the employee, but the employee is prohibited from participating in the recovery and the employer is limited in the amount of his recovery to the amount expended by him on behalf of the employee.
3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Action Against Third Parties — Plea that Plaintiff Had Received Compensation under the Pennsylvania Workman's Compensation Act — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that plaintiff had accepted compensation for his injuries under the workmen's compensation act of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff could not have successfully maintained any claim for compensation under the Virginia workman's compensation act because he was not embraced therein and not being within the Virginia act and not having accepted an award thereunder, he is not prohibited by the act nor by common law from maintaining his action for the injuries received against the negligent third person or persons responsible for them. He could not have obtained any of the benefits of the Virginia act and he is not required to suffer and bear the prohibitions of it. The prohibition of section 1887(12) of the Virginia act does not apply to him.
4. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Action Against Third Parties — Plea that Plaintiff Had Received Compensation under the Pennsylvania Workman's Compensation Act — Comity — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that plaintiff had accepted compensation for his injuries under the workman's compensation act of Pennsylvania. Defendants contended that under the rule of comity between States, and under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, it was the duty of the Virginia court to apply the Pennsylvania law, the lex loci contractus in preference to its own unless the Pennsylvania law was contrary to the public policy of Virginia. They further contended that to uphold the Pennsylvania law in this instance would be to act in flat disregard of the public policy of Virginia, which declares that an employee must elect whether he will accept an award under the workman's compensation act or pursue his remedy by an action at law, and having elected to receive an award under the act he is barred from maintaining an action.
Held: That the public policy of Virginia would not be contravened by permitting the plaintiff to maintain an action for damages for his injuries against a negligent third person who was responsible for them.
5. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Action Against Third Parties — Plea that Plaintiff Had Received Compensation under the Pennsylvania Workman's Compensation Act — Public Policy — Conflict of Laws. — In the instant case plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that plaintiff had accepted compensation for his injuries under the workman's compensation act of Pennsylvania. It is not against public policy to require a negligent wrongdoer to answer in damages to one who has been injured in an automobile accident. The question of conflict of laws has no application to the instant case. But for the Virginia workman's compensation act, the injured employee is permitted to maintain his action at law for full damages for his injuries, against the negligent third party who is responsible for them and the Virginia workman's compensation act has no application to the plaintiff in the instant case.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Albemarle county, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff assigns error.
The opinion states the case.
E. V. Walker, W. O. Fife, R. Watson Sadler and Robert E. Taylor, for the plaintiff in error.
Perkins & Battle and C. Venable Minor, for the defendants in error.
Bernard Solomon instituted an action, by notice of motion for judgment, against Dr. Manfred Call and John Call to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident, which occurred on the 17th day of September, 1931, in Albemarle county. The defendants filed a special plea in bar alleging that the action should not be maintained because Solomon had been awarded compensation for his injuries under the workman's compensation act of Pennsylvania (77 P.S. section 1 et seq.). Issue was joined upon the notice of motion and the plea and the trial court allowed the plea and dismissed the action.
Bernard Solomon was the plaintiff and Dr. Manfred Call and John Call the defendants in the court below and they will be so referred to here.
At the time of and before the present cause of action arose the plaintiff had been and was employed as a traveling salesman by Benjamin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Creel
...on this cause of action, and should be disregarded, citing excerpts from the following cases as supporting his position: Solomon v. Call, 1932, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467; Reutenik v. Gibson Packing Co., 1924, 132 Wash. 108, 231 P. 773, 37 A.L.R. 830; Personius v. Asbury Transp. Co., 1936, 1......
-
Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc.
...interpretation of the key case on which it relies to assert that Virginia law would defer to North Carolina law, Solomon v. Call, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467 (1932). See Garcia, 845 F.2d at 466–67 (discussing the Solomon case). 4. In contrast to Virginia law, North Carolina law seems to permi......
-
Bagnel v. Springfield Sand & Tile Co., 3968.
...Metal Polish Co., 1923, 99 Conn. 457, 121 A. 828; Hall v. Industrial Commission, 1925, 77 Colo. 338, 235 P. 1073; Solomon v. Call, 1932, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467. But it is clear now that this is not a matter of constitutional obligation. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident C......
-
Noblin v. Randolph Corp.
...intended to modify the decisions in the cases cited." See Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. White, 158 Va. 243, 163 S.E. 530; Solomon v. Call, 159 Va. 625, 166 S.E. 467; Corrigan v. Stormont, 160 Va. 727, 170 S.E. 16; United States Fidelity, etc, Co. v. Blue Diamond Coal Co, 161 Va. 373, 170 S.E. 728......