Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hickman

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Torts

TortsNegligenceWorkers' CompensationCasual EmploymentContributory NegligenceAssumption of Riskcasual employmentWest Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act

Facts

The plaintiff, an experienced telephone lineman who was out of work, was hired by his father, an inspector for the defendant company, to help repair the company's clock circuit in Parkersburg for not over five days. On the fourth day, while climbing a telegraph pole to string wire necessary for that repair work, the pole broke under him and he was seriously injured. Evidence showed the pole appeared sound above ground but was rotten and decayed below the surface, that discovering the defect required tools the plaintiff did not have, and that the defendant had not inspected the pole for at least a number of years. The defendant claimed the West Virginia compensation statute barred the action unless the plaintiff was in 'casual employment.'

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's short-term hiring to assist with a brief repair job constituted 'casual employment' under the West Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act, thus allowing him to maintain a negligence action. Also, whether the evidence required a directed verdict for the defendant on contributory negligence or assumption of risk.

Rule

Under the West Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act, employment is 'casual' when the contract of hiring is incidental or occasional and for a limited, temporary purpose, even if the work falls within the employer's regular business. Where evidence permits findings that a hidden defect caused the injury, proper inspection would have revealed it, and the employee acted with reasonable care, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are questions for the jury rather than grounds for a directed verdict.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Signal Services maintains communications lines throughout Charleston, West Virginia. Its supervisor hired Omar Bennett, an unemployed lineworker, for four days only to help finish a one-time repair on a courthouse timing circuit, and Omar was injured on the third day while doing line work that was part of the company's ordinary business.

Under the majority's rule, which is the best argument that Omar was in casual employment?

Explanation. The majority held that under the West Virginia statute, casual employment turns on the nature of the contract of hiring, not on whether the work itself falls within the employer's business. A short, incidental hiring for a limited temporary purpose can be casual even when the employee performs the employer's regular work. (Derived from Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hickman (n.d.).)