Corley v. South Carolina Tax Commission

Decision Date15 December 1960
Docket NumberNo. 17728,17728
Citation117 S.E.2d 577,237 S.C. 439
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesAnnie Lee Wells CORLEY and Richard Kendrick Corley, Respondents, v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION and State Workmen's Compensation Fund, Appellants.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., David Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., Whaley & McCutchen, Hoover C. Blanton, Columbia, for appellants.

Callison & Dorn, Greenwood, Edens, Hammer & Glenn, Columbia, for respondents.

OXNER, Justice.

This is a proceeding to recover workmen's compensation for the death of Albert J. Corley which occurred between the hours of 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock on the morning of October 24, 1958 as a result of an automobile accident. He had gone to Columbia on the previous day and was returning to his home in Greenwood, South Carolina, when he received the fatal injuries. The distance between these two cities is approximately 75 miles. The hearing Commissioner concluded that the trip to Columbia was made for decedent's own personal pleasure and denied compensation to his dependents. Upon review by the full Commission, this finding was reversed. The majority concluded that the work of decedent as a field agent of the Sales Tax Division of the South Carolina Tax Commission necessitated the journey to Columbia, or at least that it was one of the causes which impelled him to make that trip, and awarded compensation. On appeal to the Circuit Court, this award was affirmed. The appeal to this Court by the employer and the State Workmen's Compensation Fund followed.

Of course, it is the exclusive function of the Industrial Commission to settle questions of fact. The limit of the inquiry which this Court is permitted to make is whether there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the conclusions of the Commission.

The duties of decedent as a field agent of the Tax Commission included making investigations as to any unpaid sales taxes, handling assessments and delinquent accounts, and occasionally assisting in making audits. His territory was restricted to Greenwood County and some adjacent areas. His immediate superior, Mallon P. Harris, a district supervisor, resided in Greenville. When decedent or any other field agent under Harris' supervision found it necessary to leave his territory, he was supposed to notify Harris' office, although he was at liberty to do so without permission in the event of an emergency. Occasionally it became necessary for a field agent to make a trip to Columbia to examine the files at the office of the Tax Commission.

The State Fair is held annually in October at Columbia. Until this year the Carolina-Clemson football game was played on Thursday of the week of the fair. This is always quite a colorful occasion attended by people throughout the State. It is referred to in the testimony as 'Big Thursday', and is a legal holiday in Columbia. Section 64-152 of the 1952 Code. The testimony shows that the offices of the Tax Commission, as well as all other State offices in Columbia, are closed on that day. Each year the Tax Commission sends a memorandum to the district supervisors, stating that the Columbia office would be closed but that the district offices would remain open with all employees on duty unless they were going to the football game, in which event they could have a holiday. In 1958 this notice was not received by Harris until October 22nd, the day before the game, and, consequently, he did not have time to issue a memorandum and send it to the employees under his supervision.

During the early part of the week of the fair, decedent expressed to several friends some uncertainty as to whether he would be able to attend the game. His wife testified that he later told her it would be necessary for him to make a trip to Columbia to pick up some 'transcripts and returns' to enable him to finish an audit; that on Wednesday, October 22nd, he tried unsuccessfully to contact Harris in Greenville by telephone so as to advise him of the necessity of going to Columbia to get the records; and that about 7:45 the following morning, the day of the game, he again tried to telephone Harris but was informed that he had gone to Columbia. According to her testimony, decedent remarked to her before leaving home that he 'would just go on to Columbia and see him (Harris) down there' and would also pick up the transcripts and returns, but that it would be necessary for him to get to Columbia before 12:00 o'clock as the offices of the Tax Commission would probably be closed that afternoon.

It further appears that on Monday or Tuesday before the game Mr. Woodle, then senator from Greenwood County, told decedent that he wanted his assistance in a matter which he wasn't ready to discuss because he desired to first get some additional information. In trying to find a time when the two could conveniently meet, Senator Woodle said he would be in Greenwood all the week except Thursday, to which decedent replied: 'Well, I am going to be in Columbia Thursday on business myself.' They then arranged to meet at 1:00 o'clock at the fairground.

After leaving home about 8:30 on Thursday moning, decedent went to a cafe in Greenwood where he invited several friends to go with him to the game but stated that he would have to take his car as he had some work to do on the trip. One declined the invitation because he did not want his trip interrupted while decedent made business calls. Another of these friends, J. H. Hall, accepted. Hall and decedent then went in the latter's car to the Town of Ninety Six, a distance of approximately ten miles, where decedent attended to some tax business. The two men returned to Greenwood about 9:30 that morning where at a service station they ran across Henry S. Langston who was also invited to make the trip. Decedent, Hall and Langston left Greenwood about 10:00 o'clock and proceeded directly to Columbia. They passed through the city without stopping and went to a business establishment at Five Points, a shopping center in Columbia, which was operated by J. H. Epps, another friend of decedent. Upon arriving there about 12:00 o'clock or shortly before, the three men got out of the car and went in this place of business, decedent taking his briefcase with him. Epps expressed surprise at seeing decedent as he had previously said he would be unable to attend the game, to which decedent replied: 'Well, I didn't know until a few minutes ago or until this morning that I was going to come down.' Hall and Langston were introduced to Epps who invited all three men to have lunch. He had some food in a room back of his office to take care of any friends who called. Decedent stated that before eating he would like to use the 'phone 'to get a little information.' Epps testified that while he did not hear the conversation and did not know what it was about, he did observe decedent using the 'phone and while doing so he had his briefcase open and was scratching on a pad which Epps kept on his desk. After this call, decedent and Langston ate lunch. Hall did not eat anything because he was on a dict. The three men left Epps' place of business between 12:30 and 1:00 and went directly to the fairground.

Decedent met Senator Woodle at the fairgrounds promptly at 1:00 o'clock as previously agreed upon. Due to the fact that decedent had with him two friends and Senator Woodle was accompanied by his wife, it was decided to postpone the discussion and the two men agreed to meet in Greenwood between 7:30 and 8:00 the next morning. Shortly after this meeting, Langston left Hall and decedent as he had to get a ticket. Hall and decedent sat together at the football game. After it was over the three men got together again and went to various places around the midway. All had some whiskey but there is no evidence that any of them became intoxicated. Hall became separated from decedent and Langston around 9:00 o'clock and after being unable to find them,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dombach v. Olkon Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1972
    ...& Laundry, 251 N.C. 47, 110 S.E.2d 467; Cochran v. Maassen Tool & Supply Co., 204 Okl. 60, 226 P.2d 953; Corley v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 237 S.C. 439, 117 S.E.2d 577; Texas Employers Ins. Assn. v. Knipe, 150 Tex. 313, 239 S.W.2d 1006; Barragar v. Industrial Commission, 205 Wis. 550......
  • Gibson v. SPARANBURG SCH. DIST.# 3
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 2000
    ...See also 1 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Workers' Compensation Law § 16.02D n. 3 at D16-15 (1999) (citing Corley v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 237 S.C. 439, 117 S.E.2d 577 (1960), as supporting the majority An injury incurred during a trip which serves both a business and a personal purpos......
  • Stough v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 1955
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1993
    ...would have caused the trip to be taken by someone even if it had not coincided with the personal journey. Corley v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 237 S.C. 439, 117 S.E.2d 577 (1960). Stated another way, if the work of the employee necessitates his travel, he is in the course of employment,......
  • Gosnell v. Bryant, 17905
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1962
    ...to make is whether there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the conclusions of the Commission. Corley v. S. C. Tax Commission, 237 S.C. 439, 117 S.E.2d 577, and Steed v. Mount Pleasant Seafood Co., 236 S.C. 253, 113 S.E.2d The appellant, immediately after he was struck in the che......
  • 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