Bourus v. Hagen
| Decision Date | 15 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 26837. |
| Citation | 192 Wash. 588,74 P.2d 205 |
| Parties | BOURUS v. HAGEN et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Malcolm Douglas, Judge.
Action by J. G. Bourus against S. G. Hagen and the Seattle Association of Credit Men. From a judgment dismissing the action as to the last-named defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
W Glenn Stoneman, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ralph S. Pierce and Gordon H. Sweany, both of Seattle, for respondents.
Defendant Hagen was employed by defendant Seattle Association of Credit Men. When driving to work one morning, his car collided with the car of plaintiff. The latter brought suit against Hagen and his employer for damages on account of injuries sustained as a result of the collision. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendant Seattle Association of Credit Men interposed a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence which the court granted. From judgment dismissing the action as to that defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The sole question to be determined is whether or not Hagen was in the course of his employment at the time of the collision.
The essential facts upon which the question must be answered are That Hagen was required to report for work at the office of his employer at 8:30 a. m.; that he was driving his own car; that his employment embraced the development of membership in the association, collections, and investigational work; that a car was necessary for the performance of his work; that he used his own car, for the use of which his employer paid him $30 a month over and above his salary; that the employer did not furnish him a place to keep the car during, Before , or after hours of work; that his day's work ended at 5 o'clock; that he was not on call Before 8:30 a. m., nor after 5 p. m., although it would appear that, in developing out-of-town memberships, he may have at times used the car about his employer's business Before 8:30 a. m., or after 5 p. m.; that he was in no wise restricted in the use of his car by reason of the allowance for upkeep; that at the time of the collision he was not about his employer's business, unless it may be said that in making the trip from his home to his employer's office to report for work he was in the course of his employment.
The rule supported by the weight of authority is that an employee, merely going to or from work in his own car, is not in the course of his employment, even though he may be allowed compensation by the employer for the use of the car in and about the latter's business. 5 Blashfield, Permanent Edition, Automobile Law and Practice, § 3041; Nagy v. Kangesser, 32 Ohio App. 527, 168 N.E. 517; Hantke v. Harris Ice Mach. Works, 152 Or. 564, 54 P.2d 293; P. F. Collier & Son v. Drinkwater, 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 200.
The rule is supported, by analogy at least, in our own workmen's compensation cases, holding that a workman, going to or from work, is not in the course of his employment. Brown v. Department of Labor and Industries, 135 Wash. 327, 237 P. 733; MacRae v. Department of Labor and Industries, 185 Wash. 343, 54 P.2d 1017; Wood v. Chambers Packing Co., Wash., 68 P.2d 221. In discussing this group of cases, appellant points to the exception to the rule, which is that an employee is in the course of his employment when riding to or from work in a vehicle furnished by the employer for their mutual benefit in furtherance of the work. The exception is grounded in an express or implied agreement on the part of the employer to furnish the employee transportation to or from work. Venho v. Ostrander Ry. & Timber Co., 185 Wash. 138, 52 P.2d 1267. The holding of the employer liable in the case of Carlson v. Collier & Son Corporation, Wash., 67 P.2d 842, was based upon such an agreement. But we think it clear the case at bar does not fall within the exception.
Appellant cites a number of cases, some of which, upon a casual reading, seem to be at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum
...123 P.2d 780. Dishman v. Whitney, 121 Wash. 157, 209 P. 12, 29 A.L.R. 460, and 124 Wash. 697, 215 P. 71, we stated, in Bourus v. Hagen, 192 Wash. 588, 591, 74 P.2d 205, were no longer recognized as an Stone-Easter v. Seattle, 121 Wash. 520, 209 P. 687, overruled on rehearing 121 Wash. 522, ......
-
Lallatin v. Terry, 8712
...§ 44-1202, Joslin v. Idaho Times Publishing Co., 56 Idaho 242, 53 P.2d 323; Hayward v. Yost, 72 Idaho 415, 242 P.2d 971; Bourus v. Hagen, 192 Wash. 588, 74 P.2d 205; Dickson v. Beemer, Mo., 217 S.W.2d 515; Khoury v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 265 Mass. 236, 164 N.E. 77, 60 A.L.R. 115......
-
Saenzpardo v. United Framing Constr. Co.
...v. Brown-Service Ins. Co., 250 Ala. 613, 615 (Ala. 1948) (citing Hill v. Decatur Ice & Coal Co., 219 Ala. 380 (1929); Bourus v. Hagen et al., 192 Wash. 588 (1937); Brown v. Bond, 190 Miss. 774 (1941); Nagy v. Kangesser, 32 Ohio App. 527 (1928); Antilley v. Jennings et al., 183 S.W.2d 982 (T......
-
In re Brown's Guardianship
... ... decision of this court, is not authoritative.' ... In the ... case of Bourus v. Hagen, 192 Wash. 588, 74 P.2d 205, ... 207, we referred to the case in the following language: ... 'Appellant also stresses the case ... ...