Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Inc.
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | DYER; CHATTIN, HUMPHREYS, and McCANLESS, JJ., and PURYEAR |
| Citation | Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Inc., 477 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1972) |
| Decision Date | 22 February 1972 |
| Parties | Charlotte Carlene Orrand DOUGLAS (now Corley), Appellant, v. LEWIS BROTHERS BAKERIES, INC., and The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Appellees. |
Wilkes Coffey, Jr., Murfreesboro, for appellant.
Stephenson, Lackey, Holman & Archer, Nashville, for appellees.
This is a workmen's compensation case presenting the single issue of whether the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment. The trial judge held the death of the employee did not so arise, resulting in this appeal by the surviving widow suing for herself and the three minor children.
The deceased employee was employed by Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc., as a maintenance engineer. Under his employment contract the deceased employee worked a regular eight hour daytime shift, for five days a week. Also, as a part of the employment contract deceased employee was subject to call at any hour to come to the bakery to make repairs on the breakdown of the machinery occurring when he was not on his regular shift. When called for this extra work, he checked in and out on a time clock in the same manner as the regular shift. For this extra work he was paid time and a half, and was guaranteed at least eight hours weekly of this extra work.
During the early morning hours of February 20, 1970, pursuant to the extra work feature of the employment contract, the deceased employee was called at his home to come to the bakery to make some repairs. En route from his home to the bakery the deceased employee lost his life in an automobile accident. The automobile in which deceased employee was traveling at the time of his death was his own, as the employer did not furnish means of transportation to and from the bakery or pay any travel allowance.
Appellant insists the deceased employee's fatal trip from home to the bakery, occurring after a call from the employer, in accord with the contract of employment, was a part of the service performed by the deceased employee for the employer and that such trip was within the contract of employment. It is argued this trip was brought within the contract of employment by the fact the employer had a special interest in the availability of the deceased employee to make special trips to the bakery outside his normal employment.
The general rule is that an accidental injury received by an employee while en route to or from his place of employment is not compensable unless the journey itself is a substantial part of the service for which the employee was...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Bialecke v. Chattanooga Publishing Company, No. E2005-2560-WC-R3-CV (Tenn. 8/18/2006)
...Co., 654 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tenn. 1983); Smith v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., Inc., 551 S.W.2d 679, 681 (Tenn. 1977); Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, 477 S.W.2d 202, 203 (Tenn. 1972). Injuries incurred while commuting are simply not deemed to have occurred within the course of employment, id., an ......
-
Shannon v. Roane Med. Ctr., E2011-02649-WC-R3-WC
...site. Id. Moreover, his duties did not "require that he travel for the benefit of his employer." Id. The facts in Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, 477 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1972), while closer to this case, are also distinguishable. Douglas was a maintenance engineer who worked regular weekday ......
-
Larry Donald Howard, M.D. v. Cornerstone Medical Assoc.
...even though the distance involved was substantial, and the situs of his duties changed from time to time"); Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Inc., 477 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1972) (death of bakery maintenance engineer traveling from home to work on emergency call was not compensable even though ......
-
Quality Care of Nashville v. Waller
...directly incident to the employment itself. Central Sur. & Ins. Corp. (Central Sur. & Ins. Corp. v. Court, 162 Tenn. 477, 36 S.W.2d 907); Douglas, supra (Douglas v. Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Tenn., 477 S.W.2d (4) All of this is qualified by the fact that the 'premises' are that part of the prop......