Title: L. & A. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. McCharen
Citation: 198 So. 2d 240
Docket Number: 44331
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 1967

198 So. 2d 240 (1967) L. &amp; A. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and Western Casualty &amp; Surety Company v. Thomas Harold McCHAREN. No. 44331. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 20, 1967. Suggestion of Error Overruled May 15, 1967. *241 Cox, Dunn &amp; Clark, Jackson, for appellant. Pyles &amp; Tucker, Daniel, Coker &amp; Horton, Jackson, William Liston, Winona, for appellee. JONES, Justice. This is a workmen's compensation case. The Workmen's Compensation Commission denied the claim. The claimant appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, where the holding of the Commission was reversed and the cause remanded to the Commission for further proceedings to determine the claimant's degree of disability, if any. From this order of the court, the employer and its carrier appeal to this Court, and the claimant cross-appeals asserting that the circuit court should have entered the order the Commission ought to have entered. The question involved is a question of jurisdiction of our Workmen's Compensation Commission and the answer depends upon the facts of the employment and work of the claimant. The circumstances, evidence and facts are detailed in the opinion and order of the Attorney Referee, the portion thereof relating thereto being as follows: It was while working in Tennessee that claimant sustained his injuries for which he seeks relief. The Attorney Referee on the facts found: The Workmen's Compensation Commission by a majority thereof found that the opinion and order of the Attorney Referee was proper, and such opinion and order became the finding of the Commission. The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The only question here involved is whether the Workmen's Compensation Commission of the State of Mississippi had jurisdiction to hear a claim based upon a contract of employment made in Tennessee for work performed in Tennessee and upon an injury sustained while so employed and working in the State of Tennessee by an employee who had never been hired by nor worked for the employer in the State of Mississippi. Mississippi Code of 1942 section 6998-55 provides: It has long been the settled law that a creature of the legislature, in this case the Workmen's Compensation Commission, *243 must look for its authority and its powers and jurisdiction to the act of its creation, it not being a common law Commission nor its rights and liabilities common law rights and liabilities, the act being in derogation of and a departure from the common law. In 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 6 at p. 52 (1958), it is said: In 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 48 at p. 367 (1951), it is said: In 58 Am.Jur. Workmen's Compensation section 405 at 844 (1948), it is stated: 1 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law section 70 at 866 (1962) states: In the instant case, the employee was not hired, was not regularly employed in this State, (in fact, did no work here), and did not receive his injury in this state. Either hiring or regular employment in this state is essential to recovery under section 6998-55. But it is said that this Court has jurisdiction under Burnham Van Service, Inc. v. Dependents of Moore, 250 Miss. 165, 164 So. 2d 733 (1964) and Mandle v. Kelly, 229 Miss. 327, 90 So. 2d 645, 92 So. 2d 246 (1956). These cases in our opinion are both distinguishable from the instant case. In this case it is shown (in addition to the hiring and working only in Tennessee) that Tennessee had a Workmen's Compensation Act of its own and that the employer here carried workmen's liability insurance covering its employees under the laws of every state in which it worked including Tennessee. The Mandle case, supra, shows that the claimant Mandle was employed in Midland, Georgia; that his employer operated two tractor-trailer units delivering the products of his cannery to other states in addition to Georgia. Mandle was employed to operate one of these trucks. A truck load was assigned to a place in Louisiana, and, in order to reach Louisiana, appellant was required to traverse Mississippi on Highway 90. When his vehicle was weighed at Kreole, Mississippi, it was found that too much of the weight was on the front axle and it was *244 necessary to move 25 or 30 cases of goods to the rear of the trailer. It was while so moving these goods that the claimant received his injury. The fact that the injury occurred in Mississippi was the distinguishing factor here. In the Burnham case, supra, the claimant was employed by one Bates who resided in Long Beach, Mississippi, and the claimant had his home at Gulfport. Bates signed a lease in Mississippi leasing his trucks for interstate service to the appellant Burnham, and Moore operated the truck. The truck was based at Gulfport, Mississippi, to which point it returned after each interstate trip and from where it departed on each such trip. Moreover, Gulfport was Moore's home and there he was employed. In Mandle v. Kelly, supra, Mandle was employed by a firm in Georgia and while driving a truck through Mississippi was injured in Mississippi. The claim before our Commission was begun by doctors seeking pay for services rendered Mandle. The carrier of the employer insisted they were exempted by section 6998-55 hereinbefore mentioned. Our Court held in that case that under the facts and the Georgia law the employer did not meet the requirements of said subsection (c). The evidence showed, as stated, that the injury occurred in Mississippi. The opinion did discuss the demands of humanity relative to injured and helpless persons but the actual basis of the decision was that the injury occurred in Mississippi and that the employer was not exempted under section 6998-55 of our Act. The case of Burnham Van Service v. Dependents of Moore, supra, is distinguishable. The claimant there resided in Mississippi, kept a truck which he operated under lease for interstate business, returned to his home in Mississippi after every interstate trip and departed from his home on beginning an interstate trip. Under these circumstances, this Court held he was temporarily absent from the state only for the period of time required to transport the goods to their destination from the place where he was to load them. This was contemplated by section 6998-55 of our Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act. The remarks relative to humanity and the duties of the state in both of the Mississippi cases above cited were coupled with other facts conferring jurisdiction, viz: (1) The hiring in this state of the claimant and his regular employment here, and (2) the fact that the claimant was injured in Mississippi and the foreign employer did not come under the exemption of our Act (Section 6998-55). In Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So. 2d 863 (1954), this Court held that neither the liberal construction nor the humane spirit of the law would warrant the extension of the act beyond its legitimate scope. The Court said: In Restatement, Conflict of Laws section 400 at 488 (1934), it is stated: In addition to the foregoing authorities, the following cases support this holding: Denver Truck Exchange v. Perryman, 134 Colo. 586, 307 P.2d 805 (1957); Slaten v. Travelers Ins. Co., 197 Ga. 1, 28 S.E.2d 280 (1943); Severin v. Industrial Comm., 363 *245 Ill. 217, 2 N.E.2d 65 (1936); Cobb v. International Paper Co., 76 So. 2d 460 (La. 1954); Daniels v. Trailer Transport Co., 327 Mich. 525, 42 N.W.2d 828 (1950); Rendleman v. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, 355 Mo. 287, 196 S.W.2d 171 (1946); Suggs v. Williamson Truck Lines, 253 N.C. 148, 116 S.E.2d 359 (1960); Crawford v. Trans World Airline, 27 N.J. Super. 567, 99 A.2d 673 (1953); and, Franzen v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours &amp; Co., 128 N.J.L. 549, 27 A.2d 615 (1942). On cross appeal, the case is affirmed; on direct appeal the decision of the circuit court is reversed and the finding and order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is reinstated. Affirmed on cross-appeal: reversed and finding and order of Commission reinstated on direct appeal. GILLESPIE, P.J., and PATTERSON, INZER, and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.