Cooper v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 13 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. BA-129,BA-129 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1472 Walter COOPER, deceased, Nadine Cooper, Appellant, v. J.A. STEPHENS and Florida Farm Bureau of Casualty Insurance Co., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr., and H. Guy Smith, Lakeland, for appellant.
Manuela C. Napier and David J. Williams of Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, Lakeland, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a workers' compensation order in which the deputy commissioner denied a claim for survivor's benefits. The sole issue on appeal is whether the deputy commissioner applied the appropriate evidentiary standard in determining that the employee was not acting within the course of his employment at the time of the fatal accident. We reverse.
The accident giving rise to this appeal occurred on January 8, 1983, at 3:25 a.m. on U.S. Highway 27 South, when a pick-up truck driven by the employee collided with a tractor-trailer rig. The employee had been working as a night watchman, with duty hours from 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. until 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. He had been instructed to patrol the employer's premises, which front on U.S. Highway 27 South, in a non-routine fashion. The employee's surveilance was performed at his own discretion, the employer having made no provision for check points where the employee was required to log in during the course of his shift. The accident occurred as the employee was exiting from the driveway of the employer's premises, while the employee was still on the clock.
Two theories have been put forward concerning the employee's destination at the time of the accident. One theory has it that the employee was traveling toward a shell road which is a different entrance into the employer's property. The other theory is that the employee was going to a restaurant known as the Truck Stop, located on the opposite side of U.S. Highway 27 from the employer's premises.
The record reflects that the employee routinely went to the Truck Stop on the nights he was on duty. The night manager of the restaurant stated that the employee usually arrived at the restaurant between 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m. for coffee and a sandwich and he sometimes returned at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. for a cup of coffee. The employee's wife stated that she was with her husband on an occasion when he had a general conversation with his employer, and during this conversation the employer advised her husband that he was free to go to the Truck Stop for coffee. When the employer was questioned about the discussion, he stated that he did not recall such a conversation. Although both the employer and the supervisor stated that they expected the employee to remain on the premises at all times, they also acknowledged that the employee had not been instructed not to leave the business premises.
The employer's position is that since the employee's fatal accident occurred off the employer's premises, the employee was not within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The deputy commissioner agreed, concluding that being off the employer's premises was not consistent with the performance of the employee's duties. The deputy found, therefore, that the accident occurred "while the employee was on an unauthorized personal errand which was a substantial deviation from the duties of his employment," and denied the claim for benefits.
Appellant urges that the employer has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the general presumption of the Florida workers' compensation law that the accident occurred within the course of the employee's employment. This presumption provides, in relevant part that--
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this Chapter, it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary:
(1) That the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter. (e.s.)
................................................................................
* * *
§ 440.26(1), Fla.Stat. (1981).
The presumption of Section 440.26 is "one facet of a general policy in the workmen's compensation area that, in marginal cases, a result favoring the claimant is preferred." Hacker v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, 396 So.2d 161, 162 (Fla.1981). See also: Sanford v. A.P. Clark Motors, 45 So.2d 185, 188 (Fla.1950).
A presumption "compels the trier of fact to find the presumed fact if it finds certain basic facts to be present." Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 301.1 (2d Ed.1984). Thus, a presumption is stronger than an inference, and by statutory mandate, once an employee has established that he has (1) suffered an accident, (2) which occurred in the course of his employment, and (3) arose out of his employment--the burden shifts to the employer "to present substantial evidence" that the employee's injury arose other than in the course of his employment. § 440.26(1), Fla.Stat. (1981); Hacker v. St. Peterburg Kennel Club, at 162.
This court has defined an injury arising out of and in the course of employment as "an injury [which] occurs 'within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in something incidental to it.' " (citations omitted). Haddock v. Hardwoods of Orlando, Inc., 452 So.2d 97, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In Haddock, the employee was injured on the employer's premises during normal working hours, while he was on a paid break. The court found that although the employee's activity at the time of the injury was not a duty of his employment, it was incidental to it for the employer benefited from the improved employee morale attendant upon providing breaks for employees. Similarly, in B & B Cash Grocery Stores v. Wortman, 431 So.2d 171, 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), citing to Fidelity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. David Lawrence Mental Health Center
...while fulfilling her duties. Hillsborough County School Board v. Williams, 565 So.2d 852, 853-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA); petition for review denied mem., 480 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1985). The "arising out of" prong of this test is satisfied by ev......
-
Rockhaulers, Inc. v. Davis
... ... 495, 496 (1940); Gray v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 475 So.2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852, 854 (Fla ... 1st DCA), review denied, 480 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1985); Haddock v. Hardwoods of Orlando, Inc., 452 So.2d 97, ... ...
-
Telcon, Inc. v. Williams
...general policy in workers' compensation cases that the statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1296 Our analysis begins with Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Company of Miami, 297 So.2d 553 (Fla.1974), in......
-
Lanham v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
...duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment."); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (commenting that if the accident had occurred while claimant was on his way to a coffee break, it "should be consider......