From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burroughs v. Walmont

Supreme Court of Virginia
Jun 16, 1969
210 Va. 98 (Va. 1969)

Summary

holding that, where the relevant business was construction, "the stacking of sheetrock . . . constituted the final act of delivery, not an act of construction"

Summary of this case from Glenn v. Lafon

Opinion

42230 Record No. 6941.

June 16, 1969

Present, All the Justices.

Workmen's Compensation — Tort Action — Other Party.

Plaintiff, an employee of a trucking company which delivered sheetrock to a construction job, was injured while carrying sheetrock into the homes under construction. After receiving workmen's compensation plaintiff sues general contractor in tort. Carrying and stacking of sheetrock constituted final act of delivery and not an act of construction. General contractor was an "other party" and tort action not barred.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Prince William County. Hon. Arthur W. Sinclair, judge presiding.

Reversed and remanded.

H. Shepherd Lippincott (Lippincott Holst, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Charles H. Duff (Duff, Slenker Brandt, on brief), for defendants in error.


The sole issue presented is whether the Workmen's Compensation Act bars this tort action.

Defendant Lindsey Waldron Construction Company was the general contractor for the construction of homes in a subdivision in Fairfax County known as Carriage Hill Estates. Under a contract with Lindsey Waldron, Cherrydale Cement Block Company agreed to supply sheetrock for use in walls inside the homes. For an additional consideration, Cherrydale further agreed to deliver specified quantities of sheetrock to the rooms in the homes: to stack in each room the number of sections of sheetrock required to construct that room.

Plaintiff Burroughs was an employee of the trucking company that delivered the sheetrock for Cherrydale. While carrying sheetrock into the homes under construction, Burroughs fell down an open stairwell in one of the homes and sustained injuries.

Burroughs received compensation from his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thereafter he brought this tort action against Lindsey Waldron to recover for his personal injuries. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that it was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Burroughs appeals.

Burroughs also sued William D. Waldron, a partner of Lindsey Waldron, and Walmont, Inc., the owner of the subdivision. Counsel agree that the Act either bars the action against all three defendants or does not bar the action against any defendant.

The Workmen's Compensation Act does not bar a tort action if the person who causes the injury is an "other party" within the meaning of the Act. Va. Code Ann. Sections 65.1-40, -41 (1968 Repl. vol.). And defendant Lindsey Waldron was an "other party" if at the time of the accident Burroughs was not performing work that was part of Lindsey Waldron's trade, business or occupation. Bosher v. Jamerson, 207 Va. 539, 151 S.E.2d 375 (1966).

The trial court decided that Bosher v. Jamerson, supra, controlled this case. The general contractor in that case was required to construct a concrete floor with a 6-inch sand base beneath it. Under a contract with the general contractor, a supplier of sand was required to dump or spread the sand at the job site as directed by the general contractor. While the driver who delivered the sand was spreading it in the foundation area in accordance with the building specifications, the truck he was driving struck and injured an employee of the general contractor. We held that since the driver was engaged in the trade, business or occupation of the general contractor, the injured employee could not maintain a tort action against the driver's employer.

There is a significant difference between Bosher and this case. The deliveryman in Bosher delivered the sand, and he participated in laying the 6-inch sand base required by the building specifications. The deliveryman in this case delivered the sheetrock to the rooms where it would be used by the workmen, but he did not participate in the construction of the buildings.

The gathering of material is of course essential to the construction of a building. So in a sense each supplier of material is engaged in the general contractor's trade, business or occupation. But a line must be drawn to determine who is an "other party" for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 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 Cir. 1964).

In Garrett v. Tubular Prods., Inc., supra, the supplier agreed to deliver steel columns f.o.b. trucks at the job site. Rut the significant fact pointed out by the court was that "erection of the columns so delivered was not included". 176 F. Supp. at 104.

In this case the stacking of sheetrock in the several rooms constituted the final act of delivery, not an act of construction. So Burroughs's activities did not transcend delivery, and he was not engaged in the trade, business or occupation of Lindsey Waldron. Lindsey Waldron was therefore an "other party", and Burroughs could maintain this tort action.

We do not agree with counsel's contention that this holding is inconsistent with our opinion in Buffalo Shook Co., Inc. v. Barksdale, 206 Va. 45, 141 S.E.2d 738 (1965). Barksdale, who was injured while unloading lumber from his employer's truck, brought a tort action against the purchaser of the lumber. We held that because Barksdale was not engaged in the trade, business or occupation of his employer when the accident happened, his tort action was not barred. Contrary to the contention of Lindsey Waldron's counsel, we did not suggest that the action would have been barred if Barksdale had been engaged in his employer's trade, business or occupation. We did not reach that question.

Reversed and remanded.


I agree with the trial court that this case is controlled by the Bosher case. Here Lindsey Waldron contracted to construct houses in Carriage Hill Estates. The houses had to have inside walls, to be made of sheetrock. Lindsey Waldron contracted with Cherrydale to supply the sheetrock. Burroughs was an employee of the trucking company employed by Cherrydale to deliver the sheetrock to rooms in the houses to be built by Lindsey Waldron. Burroughs was therefore engaged in a work that was part of the trade, business or occupation of Lindsey Waldron, and was therefore not "an other party" within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.


Summaries of

Burroughs v. Walmont

Supreme Court of Virginia
Jun 16, 1969
210 Va. 98 (Va. 1969)

holding that, where the relevant business was construction, "the stacking of sheetrock . . . constituted the final act of delivery, not an act of construction"

Summary of this case from Glenn v. Lafon

holding "persons who function solely as suppliers and delivers of goods" are not in the trade, business, or occupation of a construction company

Summary of this case from Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc.

In Burroughs, the plaintiff was an employee of a trucking company who was injured while delivering sheetrock to a construction site.

Summary of this case from Hayden v. Kroger Co.

In Burroughs, the Virginia Supreme Court permitted the employee of a sheetrock supplier to sue the general construction contractor where the supplier solely-functioned as a deliverer of supplies and did not perform any construction work.

Summary of this case from Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc.

involving injury to an employee of a truck company delivering sheetrock from a sheetrock supplier to a general contractor

Summary of this case from Meredith v. Honeywell Intern., Inc.

In Burroughs, the defendant, a general contractor for the construction of homes, purchased sheetrock from Cherrydale Cement Block Company ("Cherrydale"), a supplier of sheetrock.

Summary of this case from Rice v. VVP America

stating that the defendant was an "other party' if "at the time of the accident," the plaintiff was not performing work that was part of the defendant's trade, business or occupation

Summary of this case from Rice v. VVP America

In Burroughs, the plaintiff, an employee of a trucking company, was injured while carrying plasterboard into one of several houses being constructed by the general contractor.

Summary of this case from Clean Sweep Prof. Parking Lot Maintenance v. Talley

In Burroughs, the plaintiff, an employee of a trucking company that delivered plasterboard to a construction site, was injured while carrying the materials into one of the houses being constructed by the general contractor.

Summary of this case from Peck v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.

gathering material essential for construction of building but does not make material delivery part of construction

Summary of this case from Peck v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.

In Burroughs, a worker for a sheetrock supplier was injured on a construction job and was permitted to maintain a tort claim against the general contractor.

Summary of this case from Pfeifer v. Krauss Construction Co.

In Burroughs v. Walmont, 210 Va. 98, 168 S.E.2d 107 (1969), decided after the trial court's decision in this case, we distinguished between an act of construction (as in Bosher) and an act of delivery (as in Burroughs).

Summary of this case from Hipp v. Sadler Materials Corp.

In Burroughs we held that the plaintiff-deliveryman, who was injured while engaged in the delivery of sheetrock in specified quantities to specified rooms of homes under construction, was not engaged in the trade, business or occupation of the general contractor.

Summary of this case from Hipp v. Sadler Materials Corp.
Case details for

Burroughs v. Walmont

Case Details

Full title:JAMES H. BURROUGHS v. WALMONT, INC., ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Jun 16, 1969

Citations

210 Va. 98 (Va. 1969)
168 S.E.2d 107

Citing Cases

Rice v. VVP America

At the particular time of her injury, she was looking in her business's catalog to assist Powell in placing…

Peck v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.

The Plaintiff asserts that, in leasing, delivering, and installing scaffolding, Safway's conduct was merely…