Yancey v. JTE Constructors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 951568,951568 |
| Citation | 471 S.E.2d 473,252 Va. 42 |
| Parties | John H. YANCEY v. JTE CONSTRUCTORS, INC. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Leila H. Kilgore, Fredericksburg (Kilgore & Smith, on briefs), for appellant.
John T. Bergin, College Park, MD (McCarthy, Bacon & Costello, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
In this appeal, we determine whether the trial court erred in holding that a general contractor was the statutory employer of a subcontractor's injured employee.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contracted with JTE Constructors, Inc. (JTE) to design, furnish, and install a sound barrier wall on Interstate Highway 66. JTE, as prime contractor, executed a subcontract with the Reinforced Earth Company (RECO) to design, manufacture, and deliver sound barrier wall panels to the job site.
John H. Yancey, an employee of RECO, was at the construction site inspecting one of the three-ton panels when the panel fell on him, severing his left leg below the knee. Yancey applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from RECO under the Workers' Compensation Act, Code §§ 65.2-100 through -1310. Yancey then filed a motion for judgment against JTE alleging that JTE was negligent in failing to warn him "to avoid unsafe conditions and recognize adequate bracing required" for the panels. This negligence, Yancey asserted, was the proximate cause of his injuries.
JTE filed responsive pleadings and a motion for summary judgment asserting that Yancey's exclusive remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Act because, at the time of the accident, JTE was Yancey's statutory employer. Following argument of counsel, the trial court held that Yancey was the statutory employee of JTE at the time of the accident and granted JTE's summary judgment motion. We awarded Yancey an appeal.
The principle is well established that a general contractor is the statutory employer of a subcontractor's employee under Code § 65.2-302(B) of the Workers' Compensation Act if the employee is engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the general contractor at the time of his injury. Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 186 Va. 116, 122, 41 S.E.2d 469, 472 (1947). "But when the employe[e] reaches an employer in the ascending scale, of whose trade, business or occupation the work being performed by the employe[e] is not a part," that employer is not the statutory employer of the employee. Id. 1
While each case turns on its own facts, we have held that an employee of a company supplying materials is not engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the general contractor when the employee is injured while delivering the materials to the job site. Burroughs v. Walmont, Inc., 210 Va. 98, 99, 168 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1969). However, if an employee undertakes activities which incorporate the delivered materials into the construction project, such as spreading and preparing the sand that the employee delivered to the job site, the employee has gone beyond the activities required for delivery and engaged in construction activities. Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966). Under such circumstances, we have held that the general contractor is the statutory employer of the subcontractor's employee because, at the time of injury, the employee was engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the general contractor. Id. at 542, 151 S.E.2d at 377.
In this case, the contract between JTE and RECO required that RECO "provide on site patching at its cost for materials delivered damaged to the job site." At the job site, JTE's crane unloaded a panel from RECO's delivery truck and placed it on a trailer for inspection and patching, rather than moving each panel directly from the delivery truck to placement in the sound barrier wall. 2 Following the inspection, the crane again lifted the panel and moved it to its place in the wall. This procedure allowed the crane to place an inspected panel into the wall while another panel was being inspected. Yancey was inspecting a panel on the trailer when he was injured.
JTE argues that Yancey's actions in inspecting and repairing the concrete panels were not part of the delivery of the panels, but of providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. TRC Fabrication, LLC
...741, 35 N.W.2d 814, 815 (1949) ; Meyer v. Piggly Wiggly No. 24, Inc. , 338 S.C. 471, 527 S.E.2d 761 (2000) ; Yancey v. JTE Constrs., Inc. , 252 Va. 42, 471 S.E.2d 473 (1996). Accordingly, we now adopt the "general rule." Delivery services ancillary to a contract for the sale of goods do not......
-
WHEELER v. WISEMAN Enter.S INC.
...was engaged in the "trade, business or occupation" of Defendant at the time of the injury. Id. (citing Yancey v. JTE Constructors, Inc., 252 Va. 42, 44, 471 S.E.2d 473, 474 (1996); Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 186 Va. 116, 121-22, 41 S.E.2d 469, 472 (1947)). "Although such a questi......
-
Bosley v. Shepherd
...is engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of the general contractor at the time of his injury. Yancey v. JTE Constructors, Inc., 252 Va. 42, 44, 471 S.E.2d 473, 474 (1996); Sykes v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 186 Va. 116, 121-22, 41 S.E.2d 469, 472 (1947). However, when an injured ......
-
Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Intern. Corp.
...carried on by the independent contractor are incorporated into the owner's normal business operations. Yancey v. JTE Constructors, Inc., 252 Va. 42, 471 S.E.2d 473, 474 (1996). Examples of this premise are evident in a number of cases cited in the majority opinion. See Anderson v. Thoringto......
-
8.1 Introduction
...331 S.E.2d 453 (1985).[99] 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966).[100] 17 F.3d 74 (4th Cir. 1994).[101] 819 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Va. 1993).[102] 252 Va. 42, 471 S.E.2d 473 (1996).[103] 26 Va. App. 21, 492 S.E.2d 836 (1997).[104] 53 Va. Cir. 122 (Richmond 2000), aff'd, 262 Va. 522, 551 S.E.2d 328......
-
16.7 Upzonings
...proffer exactions. See supra ¶ 16.304 (further discussion of this case).[201] 252 Va. 12, 471 S.E.2d 469 (1996).[202] Id. at 18, 471 S.E.2d at 473.[203] 215 Va. 434, 211 S.E.2d 48 (1975).[204] Id. at 439, 211 S.E.2d at 51; see also Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33......