Ammons v. McClendon, 4 Div. 806

Decision Date18 August 1955
Docket Number4 Div. 806
Citation263 Ala. 651,83 So.2d 239
PartiesW. Tom AMMONS v. Annie Margaret McCLENDON.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Chas. O. Stokes, Ozark, for appellant.

Braxton B. Rowe, Enterprise, for appellee.

LAWSON, Justice.

This is a workman's compensation case.

Certiorari was granted on petition of W. Tom Ammons to review the judgment of the lower court awarding compensation to the widow of Codie Andrews McClendon, deceased.

If there is any reasonable view of the evidence that will support the conclusion reached by the trial court, its finding and judgment will not be disturbed here. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, 249 Ala. 675, 32 So.2d 666.

McClendon was killed on Tuesday afternoon, April 14, 1953, when a truck in which he was riding overturned. The truck belonged to the employer, Ammons, and at the time of the accident it was being used to transport McClendon and several of his fellow employees to their homes in Dale County from the sawmill where they worked for Ammons. The truck was driven by another employee. The sawmill was located in Barbour County at a point more than twelve miles from the community in which the employees lived. The accident occurred after working hours in Dele County approximately six miles from the sawmill. The hourly wages of the employees, including McClendon, started upon arrival at the mill and stopped in the afternoon when they left the mill.

It is urged here that there is a total absence of any legal evidence to support the finding of the trial court that McClendon's death was caused by an accident 'arising out of and in the course of his employment.' § 253, Title 26, Code 1940. Subdivision (j) of § 262, Title 26, Code 1940, as amended, provides:

'Without otherwise affecting either the meaning or interpretation of the abridged clause, injuries by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, it is hereby declared: Not to cover workmen except while engaged in, or about the premises where their services are being performed, or where their service requires their presence as a part of such service at the time of the accident, and during the hours of service as such workmen, and shall not include an injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment, and it shall not include a disease unless the disease results proximately from the accident.'

As before pointed out, McClendon was not at or near the place where he worked when he received the fatal injury, hence our holding in Overton v. Belcher, 232 Ala. 396, 168 So. 442, has no application.

As to whether or not McClendon was where his service required his presence as a part of such service at the time of the accident and during the hours of service as a workman, within the meaning of subsec. (j), supra, depends upon the effect to be accorded his transportation to and from work in the truck. If by contract, express or implied, the transportation constituted a part of the consideration paid or to be paid McClendon for his services, then, in that event, the mutual duties of employer and employee were being performed at the time McClendon was killed and the workmen's compensation laws would be applicable. If, on the other hand, the transportation did not constitute a part of his contract of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Union Camp Corp. v. Blackmon
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1972
    ...constitutes a part of the consideration paid to the employee for his services. * * *' (Emphasis added.) In Ammons v. McClendon, 263 Ala. 651, 652, 83 So.2d 239, 240 (1955), it was stated as 'As to whether or not McClendon was where his service required his presence as a part of such service......
  • Bell v. General American Transp Corp.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1974
    ...part of the service contracted for.' " (289 Ala. at 51, 265 So.2d at 595) Also, in this connection, this court stated in Ammons v. McClendon, 263 Ala. 651, 83 So.2d 239: "As to whether or not McClendon was where his service required his presence as a part of such service at the time of the ......
  • Cheshire v. Putman
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 23, 2010
    ...only under narrow circumstances. See generally Gilmore v. Rust Eng'g Co., 289 Ala. 46, 265 So.2d 591 (1972); Ammons v. McClendon, 263 Ala. 651, 83 So.2d 239 (1955); and 1 Terry A. Moore, Alabama Workers' Compensation § 11.38 Payment of Travel Expenses (1998). 1. Section 6–11–27(a) provides:......
  • Gilmore v. Rust Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 10, 1972
    ...conditional on the furnishing of transportation, the journey has become a part of the service contracted for.' In Ammons v. McClendon, 263 Ala. 651, 652, 83 So.2d 239, 240, this court in this connection stated as 'As to whether or not McClendon was where his service required his presence as......
  • 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