Oakwood Hebrew Cemetery Association v. Spurlock
Virginia Court of Appeals
1992 WL 441851 (1992)
The Oakwood Hebrew Cemetery Association (the association) (defendant) was a corporation that operated the Oakwood Cemetery. The association had four executive officers. However, the association did not have any regular employees because the association contracted with other entities to perform the services offered by the association, such as grave opening and cemetery maintenance. Chester Lineberry (defendant) contracted with the association to perform the maintenance work for the cemetery grounds. Lineberry employed Massie Charles Spurlock (plaintiff) and sent Spurlock to mow the grass and maintain the gravesites at Oakwood Cemetery every Friday. Lineberry and Spurlock were also regular, full-time maintenance employees of another cemetery, and other cemeteries also regularly employed maintenance workers to mow and maintain their grounds. As Spurlock was mowing at Oakwood Cemetery one Friday, his foot slipped under the lawnmower, and he lost four toes. Spurlock sought workers’-compensation benefits from Lineberry and the association, but the deputy commissioner dismissed Spurlock’s claim. The commissioner noted that Virginia’s workers’-compensation statute did not apply to entities that regularly employed fewer than three employees and concluded that neither Lineberry nor the association had enough employees to be held liable under the statute. The workers’-compensation commission affirmed the deputy commissioner’s decision regarding Lineberry but reversed the decision regarding the association. The commission held that the association’s four executive officers were employees and further held that the association was considered Spurlock’s statutory employer because the association engaged Lineberry as a subcontractor to perform work that was part of the association’s business. The commission thus concluded that the association was liable to Spurlock for workers’-compensation benefits. The association appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Coleman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.