American Airmotive Corp. v. Moore

Citation62 So.2d 37
PartiesAMERICAN AIRMOTIVE CORP. et al. v. MOORE et al.
Decision Date19 December 1952
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Lawrence G. Lally, Miami, for appellant.

Alexander S. Gordon, Miami, for Marguerite S. Moore, Marcia Lynn Moore and Michael David Moore.

Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission.

DREW, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County affirming an order of the Florida Industrial Commission, which affirmed an order of the Deputy Commissioner ordering payment of compensation benefits to the widow and children of Edwin T. Moore, who was killed in an automobile accident in the early morning of November 14, 1950.

The deceased was an employee of American Airmotive Corporation. The business of the employer was the repair and maintenance of aircraft. Its business was located on the premises of the Miami International Airport Depot, in Miami, Florida. In addition to his duties as superintendent of maintenance the deceased was subject to call at all times on company business and was furnished an automobile and gasoline to operate it. There were no restrictions on operate it. There were no restrictions on the purposes for which he ten required him to deal with, placate and entertain customers and prospective customers.

One George Schuck had delivered his aeroplane to Miami for an extensive overhaul and had employed to deceased's employer for such purpose. Apparently the repairs had been delayed, and on November 13, 1950, Mr. Schuck flew to Miami from Puerto Rico to learn the cause of the delay and to see what could be done to expedite the overhaul. It fell to the lot of the deceased to placate Mr. Schuck and to entertain him. They had dinner together that evening, bowled and talked business until the early morning hours, when the deceased left Mr. Schuck, stating prior to leaving that he was going by the gasoline pump on the employer's premises en route to fill his tank as he doubted he had enough gasoline to drive to his home.

The thread of events is next picked up at the gates leading to the gasoline pumps on the grounds of the employer. There, a short time after the deceased left Mr. Schuck, two policemen were parked. They testified that they heard an automobile approaching at high speed. It slowed down, ran slightly past their parked automobile, which, according to the record, had nothing thereon to identify its official nature, backed up even therewith, and then continued in the same direction it had been going. There was no indication from the evidence that the officers could have been identified by the deceased as such. The officers stated that they turned their automobile around and followed deceased's automobile which, they say, was going at least eighty miles per hour, for a distance of about one mile to a sharp curve in the road that led to a temporary bridge across a canal. The bridge was 1.1 miles from the gate where the officers first observed the deceased's automobile. The automobile of the deceased failed to negotiate this curve and went into the canal, resulting in the death of the deceased from drowning.

It is conceded by appellants that up to the point that the deceased reached the gate on the premises of his employer, which led to the gasoline pump--the place where the police officers were parked--the employee was engaged in the business of his employer. This entire controversy arises out of the events which took place within a minute or two thereafter.

The appellants contend (1) that after the deceased left the gate he was proceeding in an opposite direction from his home, away from the site of his employer's business, that he had not been directed to perform any mission of his employer in the direction he was traveling and that therefore his death did not arise out of and in the course of employment; and (2) that the death of the deceased was caused primarily by his willful refusal to observe a safety rule required by statute, viz.: the speed law.

Why the deceased did not stop at the gate and fill his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Foxworth v. Florida Indus. Com'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 27, 1955
    ...injury was more logical and consonant with reason. He relies upon such cases as Lyng v. Rao, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 53; American Airmotive Corp. v. Moore, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 37; Sanford v. A. P. Clark Motors, Inc., Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 185. What is overlooked by the claimant is that in these case......
  • White v. C. H. Lyne Foundry & Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 3, 1954
    ...in this case died before recovering consciousness and did not testify but we find nothing in Gregory v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. or American Airmotive Corp. v. Moore, Fla., 62 So.2d 37, that collides with what we have said in this case. In this holding we have not overlooked Aetna Life Insu......
  • Pridgen v. International Cushion Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 18, 1956
    ...v. A. P. Clark Motors, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 185, 187, as approving Crawford v. Benrus Market, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 889; American Airmotive Corp. v. Moore, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 37; Lyng v. Rao, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 53 and Johnson v. Dicks, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 657, the result urged by them is clearly ......
  • McDuffee v. Miami Water Heater Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 15, 1960
    ...i. e., whether he was within the scope and course of his employment, Sanford v. A. P. Clark Motors, supra, and American Airmotive Corp. v. Moore, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 37. We have also applied it where the question was whether or not the injury could be causally connected with an accident that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT