Case Title: Yancey v. JTE Constructors Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 951568

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
Present:  All the Justices 
 
JOHN H. YANCEY 
 
v.   Record No. 951568 
OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
                                      June 7, 1996 
JTE CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 
 
Thomas S. Kenny, Judge 
 
 
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 
 
 
 
 
2 
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
                     
     
1 Relying on Nichols v. VVKR, Inc., 241 Va. 516, 403 
S.E.2d 698 (1991), and Carmody v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 234 Va. 
198, 361 S.E.2d 128 (1987), JTE argues that the trade, 
business, or occupation of the owner, VDOT, is relevant to 
resolving the issue in this case.  These cases are inapposite 
here.  Neither involved a contract between the general 
contractor and subcontractor as the basis for determining the 
general contractor's amenability to a negligence action.  In 
Carmody, the injured employee was seeking to recover from the 
owner, not a general contractor.  Nichols involved statutory 
fellow employees.  The owner's trade, business, or occupation 
was critical because the defendant architectural firm and the 
injured employee's construction firm had contracts only with 
the owner, not with each other.  Thus, fellow employee status 
existed only if both firms were engaged in the trade, business, 
or occupation of the owner. 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
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 
                     
     
2 Considering the "severe traffic conditions" under which 
the wall would be constructed, the contract provided that RECO 
accommodate JTE's intention to unload the panels from the "drop 
trailers," rather than the truck, into the wall.  The parties 
 
 
 
 
4 
                                                               
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 "field technical services" as 
required in the contract.
3  These "field technical services," 
JTE asserts, were activities connected with JTE's trade, 
business, or occupation to furnish, design, and install the 
sound walls as required in its contract with VDOT.  We 
disagree. 
 
The panels manufactured and delivered by RECO were not the 
sound wall, but were component parts of the wall, much like 
nails, boards, and sheetrock are component parts of a house.  
RECO agreed to repair sound panels damaged during transit.  
Yancey's inspection and patching activities were the final acts 
of delivery required by the contract.  Yancey's actions did not 
extend to incorporating the panels into the sound wall.  
Therefore, Yancey was not involved in furnishing, designing, or 
 
deleted the provision of the form contract requiring the 
supplier to "deal with all crating conditions" so that the 
panels could be off loaded "directly from the truck into the 
walls."  
     
3 The contract provided that the supplier would "design, 
engineer, manufacture, and supply sound barrier panels 
including . . . technical services."  The contract did not 
define "technical services." 
 
 
 
 
5 
installing a sound wall. 
 
Characterizing Yancey's activities at the time of the 
accident as "field technical services" does not change the 
substance of what he was doing.  Yancey was completing the act 
of delivering sound barrier wall panels as required by the 
contract. 
 
Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that 
Yancey was not engaged in the trade, business, or occupation of 
JTE at the time he was injured.  Thus, JTE was not the 
statutory employer of Yancey.  Accordingly, we will reverse the 
judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further 
proceedings. 
 
Reversed and remanded.