Henderson v. Central Tel. Co. of Virginia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding that, even though the defendant did not normally install the precise type of equipment that the plaintiff was installing, the installation of that type of equipment was nevertheless part of the defendant’s trade, business, or occupation
• holding the Act should be “liberally construed to advance its purpose . . . [of compensating employees] for accidental injuries resulting from the hazards of employment”
• holding the Act “is highly remedial” and should “be liberally construed to advance its purpose . . . [of compensating employees] for accidental injuries resulting from the hazards of the employment”
• distinguishing between the “trade, business or occupation” of public and private employers under the VWCA
• distinguishing private businesses who often define their trade, business, or occupation by their own day-to-day conduct
• distinguishing between the “trade, business or occupation” of public and private employers under the VWCA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).