American Auto. Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hinote

Decision Date05 November 1986
Docket NumberNo. 6960,6960
Citation498 So.2d 848
PartiesAMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, a corporation, and Cunningham Food Services, d/b/a McDonald's Storev. Miranda L. HINOTE. Civ. 5443.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Michael D. Knight of Hand, Arendall, Bedsole, Greaves & Johnston, Mobile, for appellants.

Robert T. Cunningham, Jr. of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case.

The trial court found that the employee was injured in the course of her employment and awarded her workmen's compensation for a permanent and total disability.

The employer, through able and distinguished counsel, appeals. We affirm.

The employer in the main contends that the trial court erred in awarding benefits because the employee's injury did not arise "out of and in the course of [her] employment," as required by Ala. Code (1975), § 25-5-31.

In answering this contention, we note that this case is before this court on certiorari. Ala.Code (1975), § 25-5-81(d). Our review is thus limited to questions of law and to an examination of the evidence to determine if there is any legal evidence to support the findings of the trial court. If there is any legal evidence that supports those findings, this court will affirm. Lowe v. Walters, 491 So.2d 962 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Padgett v. International Paper Co., 470 So.2d 1287) (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

The record reveals that the employee was employed as a swing manager at the employer's McDonald's store in Foley, Alabama. As swing manager, she apparently clocked in and was paid as an hourly employee, but she also assisted the store's general manager, her superior, with collateral duties for which she was qualified or trained.

The employee and the general manager of the Foley McDonald's, Kathryn Simpson, were apparently friends. On the day on which the employee received her injuries, June 29, 1984, the employee and Simpson spent most of the day together at Simpson's apartment. The employee did not have to report for work that day. Simpson was scheduled to report for work at 4:00 P.M.

Simpson testified that early that afternoon she received a telephone call reminding her that she needed to go to the employer's office in Spanish Fort and pick up the payroll before she reported for work at the Foley store. She and the employee left her apartment in separate cars and drove to the Foley store. At the store Simpson began to collect the paperwork which was apparently required by the employer in order for her to pick up the payroll.

While Simpson was collecting the paperwork, the employee took some money from the McDonald's petty cash drawer to have keys to the store made. It is apparently undisputed that the employee needed the keys for her employment as swing manager. The employee went to a department store in Foley to have the keys made, but returned shortly because that store did not have the necessary blanks to make the keys. When the employee returned, Simpson had not yet departed for Spanish Fort to pick up the payroll.

Simpson testified that, since she had not yet left for Spanish Fort, the employee "said that she would take me to Spanish Fort and then we would try and have the keys made in Spanish Fort at a place there because we would have had to gone outside of Foley to have the keys made since they didn't have a blank."

The two women also agreed that, while on this joint trip to Spanish Fort, they would go to the telephone company and make arrangements for having a telephone installed in the employee's apartment. Simpson apparently wanted the employee to get the telephone, since both she and her roommate were store managers and Simpson needed a way to contact them at home. Simpson stated that she and the employee went to the telephone company to see if she (Simpson) could co-sign for the telephone.

Simpson and the employee did make the planned stop at the telephone company and, after stopping for gasoline, proceeded to the employer's office in Spanish Fort. On the way the employee's car collided with another vehicle. The employee was seriously injured, and the parties agree that she has been rendered permanently and totally disabled.

We agree with the trial court that, based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, the employee's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Specifically, we find that this case presents a situation which falls within the dual purpose, or dual capacity, doctrine, i.e., the employee's trip served the purposes of both herself and the employer. Eddie Wallace's Garage v. Arreaga, 406 So.2d 405 (Ala.Civ.App....

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC v. Purser
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 4, 2014
    ...it could have been more detailed, it substantially complied with § 25–5–88. Ex parte Curry, supra; American Auto. Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hinote, 498 So.2d 848, 851 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).We also note that Winn–Dixie advocates for a more definitive calculation of benefits in the trial court's o......
  • Saenzpardo v. United Framing Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • October 21, 2011
    ...trip served both his purposes and those of his employer, then the dual purpose doctrine applies. American Auto Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hinote, 498 So.2d 848, 850 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986) (citing Eddie Wallace's Garage v. Arreaga, 406 So.2d 405 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981)). "Accidents occurring during su......
  • K.S. v. Carr
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1993
    ... ...         In Nabors v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 489 So.2d 573, 574 (Ala.1986), we stated that a claim ... elements of the stringent standard announced in American Road Service Co. v. Inmon, 394 So.2d 361 (Ala.1980)." In ... ...
  • Crimson Industries, Inc. v. Eller
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • October 9, 1998
    ...facts, and the conclusions of the trial court. Substantial compliance with § 25-5-88 is sufficient. American Auto. Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hinote, 498 So.2d 848, 851 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Littleton v. Gold Kist, Inc., 480 So.2d 1236, 1238 In its judgment, the trial court summarized the facts ......
  • 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