Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtAuthor: Buford
Citation4 So.2d 378,148 Fla. 323
Decision Date24 October 1941
PartiesBITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION et al. v. RICHARDSON.

4 So.2d 378

148 Fla. 323

BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION et al.
v.
RICHARDSON.

Florida Supreme Court

October 24, 1941


Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; W. May Walker, Judge.

Weldon, G. Starry, of Tallahassee, for appellants.

Ernest C. Wimberly, of Winter Haven, for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

The appeal brings for review judgment of the Circuit Court affirming an award which was made by the Florida Industrial Commission which in turn was affirming an award made by Deputy Commissioner.

[148 Fla. 324] The sole question involved is, whether or not the injury occurred in an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

The facts, in short, as disclosed by the record, are: On April 6, 1940, claimant was employed by Allen Groves as a laborer in the task of loading, hauling, and unloading boxes of fruit from citrus groves to a packing house. A Mr. Delaplane was the foreman of Allen Groves in charge of the work and having supervision over the claimant Garfield Richardson. Delaplane was operating an auto-truck belonging to Allen Groves and Richardson, under the supervision, direction and command of Delaplane, was assisting in loading and unloading and going back and forth on the truck with Delaplane to and from the respective termini. The truck was provided with a seat but no cab and while Delaplane was operating the truck on the highway in the course of the employment at a rapid rate of speed Richardson's hat blew off by reason of the force of wind created by the speed of the truck; Delaplane stopped the truck for Richardson to recover his hat; Richardson got off the truck, went back to the place where his hat fell, picked it up and, as he turned and started back to the truck, he was hit by a passing automobile and injured.

It is the contention of the appellant, as it was before the Commission and the lower court, that Richardson had departed from the duties devolved upon him by his employment and was on a private mission, going after his hat, and therefore, that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. We cannot agree with this contention. It is not contended at all that Richardson was not in the course of his employment while riding on the [148 Fla. 325] truck with Delaplane and we must hold that the necessity for him to stop and get his hat was an incident which occurred in connection with his employment. The employer's vice-principal was present, and, in effect, directed Richardson to get his hat because he stopped the truck for that purpose.

To hold otherwise would be in effect to hold that for the employer and surety company in such cases to be liable, the accident must occur while the employee is actually performing the work for which he [4 So.2d 379] is employed. Under such holding, if a workman in a building laid down his tools and went to the place provided for drinking water to get a drink and as he returned to take up his tools and proceed with his work was struck by a falling timber, or otherwise injured, no recovery could be had. Richardson and Delaplane did not only thing that reasonable men would have done under the circumstances when Delaplane stopped the truck to allow Richardson to retrieve his hat which had been blown off because Richardson was on the truck in the course of his employment.

In the Illinois case of Bertha Scholl et al. Plaintiff in Error, v. Industrial Commission et al., 366 Ill. 588, 10 N.E.2d 360, 362, 112 A.L.R. 1254, the court defines the phrases 'arising out of' and 'in the course of employment' and says: 'The phrases 'arising out of' and 'in the course of employment' are used conjunctively. The words 'arising out of' refer to the origin of the cause of the accident, while the words 'in the course of employment' refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurs.' This is a clear and concise construction of these words as used in the statute.

[148 Fla. 326] It has been generally held that the accident...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...employment’ refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs." Id. (citing Bituminous Cas. Corp v. Richardson , 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941) ).The majority opinion puts at risk many established doctrines of Florida workers' compensation by interpreting "occupa......
  • Brasington Cadillac-Oldsmobile v. Martin, CADILLAC-OLDSMOBILE and C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 11, 1994
    ...355 So.2d 1166, 1168 (Fla.1977); Foxworth v. Florida Indust. Comm'n, 86 So.2d 147 (Fla.1955); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941); Grenon v. City of Palm Harbor Fire Dist., 634 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. Williams, 601......
  • Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 6, 1954
    ...155 Fla. 428, 20 So.2d 387; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 147 Fla. 210, 3 So.2d 381; Bituminous Casualty Co. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378; Fidelity & Casualty Company of N. Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. None of these cases is applicable here because none involved ......
  • Garver v. Eastern Airlines, No. 89-335
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 28, 1989
    ...court cited Duval Eng'g & Contracting Co. v. Johnson, 154 Fla. 9, 16 So.2d 290 (1944); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, Page 266 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941), and Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495 (1940). Of the three referenced cases, only Duva......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...employment’ refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs." Id. (citing Bituminous Cas. Corp v. Richardson , 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941) ).The majority opinion puts at risk many established doctrines of Florida workers' compensation by interpreting "occupa......
  • Brasington Cadillac-Oldsmobile v. Martin, CADILLAC-OLDSMOBILE and C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 11, 1994
    ...355 So.2d 1166, 1168 (Fla.1977); Foxworth v. Florida Indust. Comm'n, 86 So.2d 147 (Fla.1955); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941); Grenon v. City of Palm Harbor Fire Dist., 634 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hillsborough County Sch. Bd. v. Williams, 601......
  • Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 6, 1954
    ...155 Fla. 428, 20 So.2d 387; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 147 Fla. 210, 3 So.2d 381; Bituminous Casualty Co. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378; Fidelity & Casualty Company of N. Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. None of these cases is applicable here because none involved ......
  • Garver v. Eastern Airlines, No. 89-335
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 28, 1989
    ...court cited Duval Eng'g & Contracting Co. v. Johnson, 154 Fla. 9, 16 So.2d 290 (1944); Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, Page 266 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378 (1941), and Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495 (1940). Of the three referenced cases, only Duva......
  • 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