Consolidated Underwriters v. Breedlove

• Decision Date: 15 October 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 566-4021.)
• Citation: 265 S.W. 128
• Parties: CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS v. BREEDLOVE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

265 S.W. 128

CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS v. BREEDLOVE.

(No. 566-4021.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

October 15, 1924.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of First Supreme Judicial District.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act between Consolidated Underwriters and Sam Breedlove. From an adverse determination, the former appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certifies question. Employee held entitled to compensation.

C. A. Lord, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Woods, King & John, of Houston, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, J.

This is a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals of the First District. The facts submitted are as follows:

"The evidence shows that appellee was an automobile mechanic, and was an employee of the corporation before named at the time he received his injuries, and that the corporation carried compensation insurance with appellant for the benefit of its employees under the provisions of the employee's compensation statute of this state. Appellee at the time he received his injuries was driving along a public street in the city of Houston in his own automobile, going from his home, where he had been to get his noon meal, back to his work at the shop or place of business of his employer. His injury was caused by a collision of his automobile with that of another person driving along or across the street on which appellee was driving.

"Appellee testified that when he left the shop to go for his lunch he was told by his employer to go or come back by the office of the Houston Electric Company and ascertain if there was a battery there for Edson & Feray. In obedience to these instructions, when he left the shop he went directly to the office of the Electric Company to inquire about the battery, but failed to obtain any definite information. He then proceeded to his home, got his lunch, and was returning to his work when he was injured as before stated.

"The evidence further shows that under the terms of his employment appellee was subject to call at any time, day or night, when his services were needed. He had frequently been called when at lunch, and frequently at night. There was no fixed time for him to go to lunch. He usually went about the noon hour, when there was a slack in the demand for his services, and returned promptly after eating his lunch. The company had a truck which he and other employees usually used in going for their lunch, but when the truck was out of repair or in other use appellee would go in his own automobile. On this occasion the company's truck was being used for other purposes, and for that reason appellee used his own automobile. Appellee's automobile was kept in repair by his employer free of charge to him. One of his employers testified:

"`The reason no charges were ever made against Breedlove for repairs or mechanical adjustments on his own car was because when the company's truck was out of commission or for any other reason not available for use at times the company's employees would use Breedlove's car for the business of Edson & Feray.'"

The question submitted is:

"Upon this evidence did Breedlove receive the injury for which he seeks compensation in this suit in the course of his employment as that term is used and defined in our Workmen's Compensation Statute?"

The term "injury" as used in the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act is defined in said act as follows:

"* * * But shall include all other injuries of every kind and character having to do with and originating in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer received by an employé while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer...