White v. George A. Fuller Co.

Decision Date18 January 1917
PartiesWHITE v. GEORGE A. FULLER CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; John F. Brown, Judge.

Action by William A. White against the George A. Fuller Company. Case reported. Judgment for defendant.

W. E. Sisk and R. L. Sisk, both of Lynn, and D. W. Corcoran, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Peabody, Arnold, Batchelder & Luther, of Boston, for defendant.

DE COURCY, J.

At the time of the accident the defendant, as general contractor, was erecting a large building in Boston. The plaintiff's employer, the National Fireproofing Company, was one of twenty-three subcontractors furnishing work or materials under contracts with the defendant. The plaintiff, while at work in the building, was struck by a plank which was negligently dropped by one of the defendant's employés; and he brings this action of tort at common law. Compensation insurance was carried by the defendant, and notices thereof were properly posted on the building; but apparently the fireproofing company was not insured. The sole question before us is whether the plaintiff's only rights as against the defendant are those arising under the workmen's compensation act.

Part 3, § 17, of the act provides in part, as follows:

‘If a subscriber enters into a contract, written or oral, with an independent contractor to do such subscriber's work, or if such a contractor enters into a contract with a subcontractor to do all or any part of the work comprised in such contract with the subscriber, and the association would, if such work were executed by employees immediately employed by the subscriber, be liable to pay compensation under this act to those employees, the association shall pay to such employees any compensation which would be payable to them under this act if the independent or sub-contractors were subscribers.’

Accordingly the plaintiff, as one of ‘such employés,’ was entitled to compensation from the defendant, who was a subscriber. King's Case, 220 Mass. 290, 107 N. E. 959.

It happened in this instance that the plaintiff's injury was caused by an employé of this defendant. But the liability of the defendant to compensate the plaintiff under the act would be the same if the careless workman were an employé of any of the twenty-three sub-contractors engaged on the building.

The reason for thus putting upon the general contractor a broad responsibility to all the workmen employed on the building is stated by the commission that framed the act, as follows:

Section 17 provides that an employer shall be liable to pay compensation to employees of a contractor who is performing part of the work of the employer on the premises of the employer or on premises under his control. The object of this section was to prevent the possibility of defeating the act by hiring an irresponsible contractor to carry on part of the employer's work.’

Report of the Commission on Compensation for Industrial Accidents, p. 52. For the full protection of all the workmen on the building, as to them the liabilities of an employer were placed on the defendant general contractor by section 17.

The contention of the plaintiff in effect is, that while the statute makes the principal contractor responsible to him as an employer, and practically compels such contractor to carry insurance for his benefit, yet it denies that contractor the immunity from common law liability which is afforded to employers generally. Such a one-sided interpretation of the act is not to be adopted unless the language clearly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1980
    ...workmen's compensation system. Yet the plaintiffs in cases like King were not "employees" under the act. See White v. George A. Fuller Co., 226 Mass. 1, 4-5, 114 N.E. 829 (1917). They did not chose to waive their common law rights to redress of personal injuries. Nor did they receive compen......
  • Brown v. Arrington Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1953
    ...principally upon holdings in Massachusetts under statutes similar to those in Idaho. The Massachusetts court held in White v. George A. Fuller Co., 226 Mass. 1, 114 N.E. 829, that the general employer or contractor is made liable by the Massachusetts Workmen's Compensation Law to the employ......
  • Bunner v. Patti
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1938
    ...Louis v. Center Comm. Co., 337 Mo. 247; State ex rel. v. Becker, 333 Mo. 277; Fox v. Dunning, 124 Okla. 228, 255 P. 582; White v. Fuller Co., 226 Mass. 1, 114 N.E. 829; White v. Macomber Co., 244 Mass. 195, 138 N.E. Willard v. Bancroft Realty Co., 150 N.E. 511; Dresser v. New Hampshire Stee......
  • In re O'Hara
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1924
    ...Act, but the subcontractorsby whom the complainant was employed were not so insured. See G. L. c. 152, § 18, White v. George A. Fuller Co., 226 Mass. 1, 114 N. E. 829, and Bindbeutel v. L. D. Willcutt & Sons Co., 244 Mass. 195, 138 N. E. 239. Both these cases are within the scope of the Wor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT