Stewart v. Bass Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 791251,791251 |
| Citation | 223 Va. 363,288 S.E.2d 489 |
| Parties | Herbert E. STEWART v. BASS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., et al. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Christopher Allen Meyer, Richmond (James A. Eichner, Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, Richmond, on briefs), for appellant.
John M. Oakey, Jr., Richmond (McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, on brief), for appellees.
Before CARRICO, C.J., and COCHRAN, POFF, COMPTON, THOMPSON and STEPHENSON, JJ., and HARRISON, Retired Justice.
Herbert E. Stewart filed this action at law against Bass Construction Company, Inc., seeking damages for a personal injury which he alleged resulted from Bass's negligence. Bass moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that Stewart's sole right to recovery was under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act. After hearing evidence on the motion, the trial court dismissed the suit and this appeal ensued.
Stewart, a mechanic, was employed by the Federal Paper Board Company. Federal manufactures pulp and paper products. As a part of its manufacturing process it purifies and recycles water, using aerators installed in lagoons. Each aerator weighs approximately 2,000 pounds.
Bass is primarily engaged in construction work, but it also provides cranes and operators to companies to be used in industrial work. Federal had, on a number of occasions, rented a crane and operator from Bass.
An aerator at Federal's plant needed repair. As was its custom, Federal endeavored to remove the aerator from the lagoon and take it to the plant maintenance shop. A crane was ordered from Bass to assist in the removal.
Three Federal employees and Bass's crane operator participated in moving the aerator. Stewart was in charge of the operation. The Federal employees, working from a boat, disconnected the aerator and pulled it closer to shore so it could be lifted by the crane. After they attached the crane's hook to the aerator, Stewart signaled the crane operator to raise the boom. Stewart was injured when the boom became entangled in some overhead electric lines. He was paid workmen's compensation benefits by Federal.
Code § 65.1-40 states that the rights and remedies granted under the Workmen's Compensation Act "shall exclude all other rights and remedies" of an employee to recover for an injury received during the course of his employment. Code § 65.1-41 provides, however, that an employee can maintain an action at law against the person causing his injury, provided such person is an "other party." Our task is to determine whether Bass was an "other party."
The test to be applied in the present case was first stated in Feitig v. Chalkley, 185 Va. 96, 38 S.E.2d 73 (1946). There we said that in order to maintain a common law action the defendant had to be a stranger to the trade, occupation, or business in which the plaintiff was involved. This test has been restated and applied numerous times. See, e.g., Stout v. Onorati, 221 Va. 143, 267 S.E.2d 154 (1980); Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966); Rea, Administratrix v. Ford, 198 Va. 712, 96 S.E.2d 92 (1957); Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng. Corp., 186 Va. 116, 41 S.E.2d 469 (1947). Its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Bassett Furniture v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897, 902, 224 S.E.2d 323, 326 (1976).
Each party relies on an "other party" case involving the renting of a crane and operator. In Rea, a general contractor was constructing a school building. He rented a crane and operator from the defendant to be used in erecting the steel work. We held that since the defendant was engaged in the work of constructing the building he was not an "other party," and an injured employee of the general contractor could not maintain an action against him. Rea, 198 Va. at 717, 96 S.E.2d at 96.
In Kramer v. Kramer, et al., Adm'rs., 199 Va. 409, 100 S.E.2d 37 (1957), it was the employee of the crane company that was injured. As in Rea, the company was hired to help in lifting trusses at a construction site. Unlike Rea, however, no general contractor was involved. The defendant had contracted to do the carpentry work on the job. Since a jury found the lifting of the trusses was not part of the trade, occupation, or business of the defendant, which was carpentry, the plaintiff was permitted to recover. Id., at 418, 100 S.E.2d at 44.
Although not cited by either party, Williams v. Gresham Company, 201 Va. 457, 111 S.E.2d 498 (1959) bears a marked similarity to the present case. The Chesapeake Bay Ferry District had authority to operate ferries as a connecting link in the State highway system. It had a maintenance department to care for the District's property and equipment. When necessary, a crane and crew were hired to assist in the maintenance department's work, but an independent contractor was retained to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masterson v. Am. Heavy Indus.
...necessarily also was a stranger to the work of AHI. AHI describes this painting project as maintenance of the coal loader. AHI points to the Stewart case (a descending case) for the proposition that all repairs and maintenance always are considered a part of the trade, occupation, or busine......
-
Bosley v. Shepherd
...Act.Code § 65.2-309; Fowler, 260 Va. at 425,537 S.E.2d at 314; Stone, 260 Va. at 412,537 S.E.2d at 307-08; Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 365-66, 288 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1982). The issue whether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a juri......
-
Whalen v. Dean Steel Erection Co., Inc.
...We have considered the underlying question in many cases. The test to be applied was most recently set forth in Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 288 S.E.2d 489 (1982). Code § 65.1-40 states that the rights and remedies granted under the Workmen's Compensation Act "shall exclude all......
-
Stone v. Door-Man Mfg. Co.
...to a common law action for an employee's injury or death against an "other party." Code § 65.2-309; Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 365, 288 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1982). "The issue whether a person is a statutory employee presents a mixed question of law and fact which must be resolved......
-
8.1 Introduction
...Va. 165, 563 S.E.2d 745 (2002).[43] See Feitig v. Chalkley, 185 Va. 96, 103, 38 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1946).[44] See Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 365-66, 288 S.E.2d 489, 490 (1982).[45] 229 Va. 164, 327 S.E.2d 102 (1985).[46] See, e.g., Peck v. Safway Steel Prods., Inc., 262 Va. 522, ......
-
2.2 Employer-employee Relationship
...377, 355 S.E.2d 596 (1987) (approximately 150 pages of briefs were filed in this case on this single issue); Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 288 S.E.2d 489 (1982); Southeastern Tidewater Area Manpower Auth. v. Coley, 221 Va. 859, 275 S.E.2d 589 (1981); Mims v. McCoy, 219 Va. 616, ......
-
8.4 Subrogation
...to by the employee is deemed withdrawn and not included in the arbitration.--------Notes: [190] See, e.g., Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 288 S.E.2d 489 (1982).[191] Va. Code § 65.2-309.[192] Va. Code § 65.2-310.[193] Va. Code § 65.2-812; see U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Blue Diamond......
-
7.4 Reimbursement and Subrogation (other Than Fire Insurance)
...Knudson, 534 U.S. at 207.[168] Id. at 213-14 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).[169] See, e.g., Stewart v. Bass Constr. Co., 223 Va. 363, 288 S.E.2d 489 (1982), distinguished by Masterson v. American Heavy Indus., 84 Va. Cir. 432 (Norfolk 2012).[170] Va. Code § 65.2-309.[171] Va. ......