City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman
| Decision Date | 09 April 1954 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG v. CASHMAN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harry I. Young, Lewis T. Wray, Adrian S. Bacon and Frank D. McDevitt, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Noble C. Doss, Gulfort, Burnis T. Coleman and Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for respondents.
This is a certiorari proceeding wherein the City of St. Petersburg seeks the review of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission which overruled an order of a deputy commissioner and awarded workmen's compensation to the claimant, Myrtle Cashman.
There is no real dispute about the material facts in the case. The City of St. Petersburg owns the Mound Park Hospital and operates a cafeteria in the building. The claimant, Myrtle Cashman, went to the hospital to secure employment. The head dietitian offered her a job as a cafeteria counter girl and told her to report for work the following morning.
At the stipulated hour the claimant arrived on the premises for assignment to duty. As she was entering the hospital she slipped and fell on an inclined concrete walkway leading into the building. After the fall, she got to her feet, went into the hospital, reported to the dietitian, and was assigned to the specific work for which she had been employed. Thereafter, physical complications developed resulting from the fall, and the claimant incurred certain medical bills and suffered some loss of earnings.
Subsequently, Myrtle Cashman filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The claim was controverted by the City of St. Petersburg on the ground that the claimant was not actually engaged in the employment of the city at the time she was injured. The deputy commissioner upheld the contention of the city and entered an order denying the claim. The full commission reversed the order of the deputy commissioner and this proceeding followed.
We have the opinion that the full commission acted correctly in reversing the order of the deputy commissioner. Under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law an employee is defined as a 'person engaged in an employment under any appointment or contract of hire * * * express or implied, oral or written * * *.' See section 440.02(2), Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. There can be no doubt that under the facts of the case there was a valid contract of employment between the claimant and the city. In pursuance of the contract, the claimant went to the hospital for the purpose of being assigned to the specific duties she was to perform. She was on the premises when the accident occurred; and although at the time she fell she had not actually gone to work at the specific task for which she had been hired, she was certainly engaged in doing something that was necessarily incidental to such work at the time of her injury. Kasari v. Industrial Commission, 125 Ohio St. 410, 181 N.E. 809, 82 A.L.R. 1040; anno. 49 A.L.R. 424, 82...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Artukovich v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co.
...ex rel. Kusie v. Weber, 72 N.D. 705, 10 N.W.2d 741, 745; Francis v. Scheper, 326 Mich. 441, 40 N.W.2d 214, 217. City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman, Fla., 71 So.2d 733, 734, holds 'engaged in employment' means doing a thing necessary and incidental to the In I-L Logging Co. v. Manufacturers &......
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Garden of Eat'n of Tampa, Inc.
...(2) is preparing to begin work or leave for the day; and (3) is injured on thepremises of the employer. See City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman, 71 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1954)(an injury is deemed to have occurred in the course of employment if it is sustained by a workman, on an employer's premise......
-
Pensacola Christian Coll. v. Bruhn
...1st DCA 1986); Johns v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 485 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman, 71 So.2d 733 (Fla.1954). Conversely, if the injury occurs off the premises, the injury will not be compensable unless the injury “is caused b......
-
Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clark
...preparatory or incidental to performance of his or her duties, and which are reasonably necessary for such purpose. City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman, 71 So.2d 733 (Fla.1954) (claimant who fell and was injured as she entered City Hospital to begin work was doing something necessarily incide......