London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Britton
| Decision Date | 08 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8383.,8383. |
| Parties | LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Limited, v. BRITTON, Deputy Com'r. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Edwin A. Swingle, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Ernest A. Swingle and Allan C. Swingle, of Washington, D. C., appeared on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, U. S. Employees' Compensation Commission, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Bernard J. Long, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Daniel B. Maher, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
Defendant Britton, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission, District of Columbia, awarded compensation to the widow and minor children of Edwin Walker, deceased. Plaintiff, as insurer of the compensation liability of Walker's employer, sought review of the award in the District Court, which confirmed the award. The sole question is whether the fatal injuries arose "out of and in the course of employment."1
Walker was employed as "third assistant manager" of a retail hat store in which there were only two other employees — a manager and an assistant manager. The Deputy Commissioner found that the manager sent Walker to get lunch for all three employees in order to save time on an exceptionally busy day. He found that Walker was struck by an automobile while carrying out this direction. These findings which are clearly sufficient to support the award are not contradicted by any testimony in the record.
The theory of the appellant, London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd., is that additional findings should have been made (1) that the employees had established between themselves a practice of bringing back lunch for each other when advisable because of the weather or business conditions; (2) that Walker would have gone to lunch at the same time even if he had not been getting lunch for the others; (3) that the employer did not pay for the lunches of the employees. It is contended that with these additional findings the award is contrary to law.
Only the first of the suggested findings calls for any discussion. In the first place, the practice is irrelevant because the testimony is uncontradicted that on the day of the accident Walker was ordered to get lunch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. U.S.
...facts that linked the employee's lunchtime injury to the performance of his job. For example, in London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Britton, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 138 F.2d 932 (1943), relied upon by both the defendant and the district court, the employee, who was struck by a car while crossi......
-
Pulley v. Peter Kiewit Son's Co.
...123, 168 F.2d 553; Cardillo v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 71 App.D.C. 330, 109 F.2d 674; and London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Britton, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 138 F.2d 932. ...
-
Wetzel v. Britton
...is therefore essential to an award of compensation under the District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act. 3 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 138 F.2d 932. 4 1940, 71 App.D.C. 330, 109 F.2d 5 1928, 276 U.S. 154, 48 S.Ct. 221, 72 L.Ed. 507, 66 A.L.R. 1402. 6 For the cases cited, see 276 U.S. 15......
- Laughlin v. Garnett, 8322.