Johnson v. Jefferson National Bank

4 Citing cases

  1. Jeffreys v. Uninsured Employer's Fund

    297 Va. 82 (Va. 2019)   Cited 24 times

    We have applied that provision and its predecessors in various contexts, including those involving both private-business employersSee, e.g. , Rodriguez , 287 Va. at 194-98, 754 S.E.2d 275 ; Johnson v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank , 244 Va. 482, 485 & n.1, 422 S.E.2d 778 (1992) ; Nichols v. VVKR, Inc. , 241 Va. 516, 521-23, 403 S.E.2d 698 (1991) ; Cinnamon , 238 Va. at 474, 478, 384 S.E.2d 618 ; Carmody v. F.W. Woolworth Co. , 234 Va. 198, 203, 361 S.E.2d 128 (1987) ; Shell Oil Co. , 212 Va. at 719, 724, 187 S.E.2d 162. and governmental employers

  2. Bowling v. Wellmore Coal Corporation

    114 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing Shell Oil and Smith v. Horn, and concluding that "Bowling's hauling of coal is 'obviously a subcontracted fraction of a main concern'"

    To support his claim that Smith is no longer good law, Bowling points to the Virginia Supreme Court's language where it simply expressed that it would not use the same criteria to evaluate whether a claimant was engaged in the business of a private owner as it used with regard to an owner which was a public entity. Johnson v. Jefferson National Bank, 422 S.E.2d 778, 780 n. 1 (Va. 1992). From this notation in Johnson, Bowling reasons that, since Smith cited Anderson v. Thorington Construction Co., 110 S.E.2d 396 (Va. 1959), with approval, and since the owner in Anderson was a public entity (the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Authority), then Smith "is no longer authoritative on the issue of a private owner's `trade, business or occupation.'" Br. of Appellant at 18.

  3. Edson v. State

    2003 Vt. 32 (Vt. 2003)   Cited 13 times
    Holding "the critical inquiry ... is whether the type of work being carried out by the independent contractor is the type of work that could have been carried out by the owner's employees as part of the regular course of the business"

    In the present case, it is plain that plaintiff was injured while engaged in the State's business of distributing liquor to its local agencies. See 7 V.S.A. § 104(2) (commissioner shall supervise operation of local agencies for sale and "distribution" of spiritous liquors); see Johnson v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 422 S.E.2d 778, 780 n. 1 (Va. 1992) (determining whether employee is engaged in business of public entity requires examination of nature of business mandated or authorized by legislative authority). While we recognize that the State's relationship to Nelson Trucking in this case is not identical to the general contractor-subcontractor context at a construction site, nothing in § 601(3) or any of the other provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act suggest that the State should be precluded from obtaining the status of statutory employer in this case.

  4. Salih v. Lane

    423 S.E.2d 192 (Va. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    Hence, the defendant was not the plaintiff's statutory employer because defendant did not prove that he acted as a general contractor on behalf of his patient within the meaning of Code Sec. 65.1-30, nor did he prove that plaintiff was engaged in an activity that was part of defendant's trade, business, or occupation. See Johnson v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 244 Va. 482, 422 S.E.2d 778 (1992), decided today. Therefore, plaintiff's common-law action is not barred by the provisions of the Act upon which defendant relies.