Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Kennemer
Decision Date | 05 June 1942 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 188. |
Citation | 8 So.2d 519,243 Ala. 42 |
Parties | DALLAS MFG. CO. v. KENNEMER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Sadler & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Griffin & Ford, of Hubtsville, for appellee.
The question in this case is whether the injury and death of an employee arose out of as well as in the course of his employment, and therefore whether it is compensable under Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 5, Title 26, Code of 1940.
There was an agreed statement of facts which the judge used as his finding of the facts. It appears that this decedent Kennemer and Shelton and Lackey were employees of defendant engaged in the same shift due to be relieved at three o'clock in the afternoon. Mrs. Shelton, the wife of said employee, had a personal grievance against Lackey, in no way connected with the employment. She was not an employee, but knowing that Lackey was due to come off the shift at three in the afternoon, she made her way through the gate to the exit of the building where they were employed. Kennemer was through with his work, and was on the outside of the building of defendant near the exit, but still within the enclosed premises awaiting the blowing of the factory whistle to change the shift. As Lackey was making his exit, Mrs. Shelton fired a pistol at him, missed him and struck Kennemer accidentally causing his death. "Her shooting at Lackey was for reasons personal to her, arising out of a love affair between her and Lackey." She had frequently entered through this gate, though a guard was stationed there. Other persons not employed by defendant entered the premises both through the gates and through the office of the defendant.
This was common practice. Mrs. Shelton had the pistol concealed and defendant had no notice or knowledge of it. From the agreed facts, the court concluded that
We agree with the trial court that this situation is not within the exception of section 262(j), Tit. 26, Code of 1940, since it was not an intentional injury of Kennemer. But it does not follow that because the injury was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce
... ... to their employment ... In ... Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Kennemer, 243 Ala. 42, 8 So.2d ... 519, we held that compensation [249 Ala. 680] was ... ...
-
Hudson v. Roberts
...for its execution. Ramos v. Taxi Transit Co., 276 App.Div. 101, 92 N.Y.S.2d 744; Id., 301 N.Y. 749, 95 N.E.2d 625; Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Kennemer, 243 Ala. 42, 8 So.2d 519; Kentucky Fluorspar Co. v. Wolford, 263 Ky. 471, 92 S.W.2d 753; Ashley v. F-W Chevrolet Co., 222 N.C. 25, 21 S.E.2d 834; M......
-
Ex Parte N.J.J., 1070173.
...risk of assault." Id. § 10:25 (citing Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bruce, 249 Ala. 675, 32 So.2d 666 (1947); Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Kennemer, 243 Ala. 42, 8 So.2d 519 (1942); Howard Odorless Cleaners, Inc. v. Blevins, 237 Ala. 210, 186 So. 141 (1939); Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Ingle, 223 Ala. ......
-
Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Rush
...to recover, he must prove that his injuries arose out of his employment.' After that statement, our case of Dallas Manufacturing Co. v. Kennemer, 243 Ala. 42, 8 So.2d 519, and similar Workmen's Compensation cases from other jurisdictions are cited in support of its argument. We note that a ......