U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1966

Wendell Evans v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 11, 1966 · No. 10354_1 · Bryan, Bell, Field

361 F.2d 364; 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6204; 1966 A.M.C. 2059 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Urban A. Lester, Washington, D. C. (Albert H. Greene, Washington, D. C., Robert L. Murphy, Alexandria, Va., Robert M. Stefanon, Greensburg, Pa., and Larson & Greene, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant., Phillips M. Dowding, Newport News, Va., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Laffoon v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)
Mathes v. Davis (Norfolk County Circuit Court 2007)
Coulter v. United States (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2003)
Morgan v. MDC Holdings, Inc. (Fairfax County Circuit Court 2000)
Ramsburg ex rel. Estate of Ramsburg v. Target Stores, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1997)
Bowen v. Allied Towing Corp. (Norfolk County Circuit Court 1980)
Grayce E. Corollo v. S. S. Kresge Company, D/B/A K-Mart (4th Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

For serious personal injuries suffered by Wendell Evans on July 16, 1962 while working as a welder in the erection of cranes at the Virginia shipyard of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, he sued for damages, alleging the company’s negligence as the cause of the accident. At the time, he was in the employ of McLean Contracting Company, which had been engaged by the shipbuilding company to install two cranes. The action was dismissed— and rightly we think — on Shipbuilding’s motion for summary judgment.

Decision was grounded on the Virginia Workmen’s Compensation Act, Code of 1950, as amended, §§ 65-26 and 65-37, declaring an employee’s right to compensation under this statute to be his exclusive remedy. The Act bars suit by an employee of a contractor or sub-contractor against the owner of the project if the employee is injured in work which is “a part of the [owner’s] trade, business or occupation”. Concededly the requirements of the Act have been met and the plaintiff Evans has accepted its benefits.

The record discloses no genuine issue upon the material facts in the case and they bring him squarely within the Act. *365 Hence his sole remedy is the recovery of statutory compensation. This was the view of the District Court in dismissing the action.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.