Ex parte Byrom
Decision Date | 02 April 2004 |
Citation | 895 So.2d 942 |
Parties | Ex parte Richard BYROM. (In re Ceasco, Inc., d/b/a Skill Lube v. Richard Byrom). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Michael K. Timberlake of Siniard, Timberlake & League, P.C., Huntsville, for petitioner.
James L. Stirling, Jr., Birmingham, for respondent.
Richard Byrom sued his former employer Ceasco, Inc., d/b/a Skill Lube, for workers' compensation benefits for injuries he suffered from an on-the-job lightning strike. After trial on oral testimony and written exhibits, the trial court entered an order which reads, in pertinent part:
The trial court awarded benefits accordingly. The order of the trial court does not discuss the legal theory of causation.
After the trial court denied a postjudgment motion filed by Ceasco, Ceasco appealed. On appeal, Ceasco argued that Byrom failed to prove that an accident arising out of his employment caused his injury, in that, Ceasco said, Byrom had failed to prove that his use of the telephone posed a risk of injury to him by a lightning strike materially greater than the common risk posed to other persons in the locality. Byrom argued that he had suffered an accidental injury arising out of his employment. Alternatively, Byrom argued that he had presented substantial evidence to prove legal causation as approved by Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So.2d 262 (Ala.1996).
The Court of Civil Appeals held:
the cases involving exposure to heat and cold, and more recently the cases involving heart attacks and strokes, present a challenge to a court attempting to determine if the injury or death actually `arose out of' the worker's employment. In the present case, we are faced with that same task. Does the injury caused by lightning in this case arise out of a worker's employment?
Ceasco, Inc. v. Byrom, 895 So.2d 932, 935-39 (Ala.Civ.App.2002).
Byrom petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Byrom properly invoked our Rule 39(a)(1)(D) and (a)(1)(C), Ala. R.App. P., certiorari jurisdiction. Invoking Rule 39(a)(1)(D), he claims that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case conflicts with American Fuel & Clay Products Co. v. Gilbert, 221 Ala. 44, 127 So. 540 (1930), Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So.2d 262 (Ala.1996), and Morell v. Tennessee Valley Press, Inc., 716 So.2d 1282 (Ala.Civ.App.1998). Invoking Rule 39(a)(1)(C), he claims that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals presents the question of first impression for this Court whether the lightning strike and its circumstances constitute an accident arising out of employee's employment as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act. We reverse and remand.
Byrom was the service manager of one of the automotive service and repair shops operated by Ceasco. Byrom worked six days per week. Monday through Friday he usually worked from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and on Saturday he worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He usually worked 50 to 60 hours per week.
Byrom's duties as service manager included opening and closing the shop, handling all customer relations, supervising service and repair work, diagnosing automotive problems, and occasionally assisting with oil changes, tune-ups, and "brake work." He spent at least 30% of his workday talking on the telephone with customers, other managers, vendors, and supervisors. Typically, Byrom answered about 100 telephone calls per day. He also used the telephone to check on the availability of parts, to order parts, to call about outstanding accounts, and to solicit service work from owners of large automobile fleets. Accordingly, Byrom spent about 15 to 18 hours per week talking on the telephone.
Most of his time on the telephone he spent ordering parts. No other employees ordered parts.
On July 24, 1998, the weather was stormy, with rain, thunder, and lightning. About 3:30 p.m., while leaning against a metal table in the office, Byrom was talking on a corded telephone to Doug Benson, the manager of the Ceasco shop in Cullman. While Byrom was talking on the telephone, William Brosch, an employee in the shop managed by Byrom, heard a clap of thunder and a split second later heard Byrom yell. Looking around the car he was working on, Brosch saw Byrom drop the telephone, grab his ear, and walk in circles.
According to Brosch, after Byrom walked around once or twice in a circle, Byrom's legs were shaking so much that he sat on the floor, where he sat rocking back and forth while holding his ear. Shop employees asked Byrom whether he was all right. He said he was nauseous. He was taken to the bathroom, where he vomited. Because his heart was fluttering, he decided he needed to go to the hospital. One of the shop employees drove Byrom to the emergency room of a hospital.
Byrom has little memory of July 24, 1998. He recalls talking on the telephone to the Cullman store manager. Byrom's next recollection is waking up on the floor. He recalls feeling severe pain in the left side of his body and going to the hospital. He does not recall yelling or walking in circles. He does not recall hitting his head but does recall severe pain in his head. After he returned to work, shop employees showed him where he was sitting when they found him. He was six feet away from the telephone. They told him that he was thrown six feet from where he had been talking on the telephone. Subsequent to Byrom's injury, because of a continual buzzing noise, the telephone he had been using had to be replaced with another telephone.
Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala.1996). "The Work[ers'] Compensation Act, being remedial in nature, should be given liberal construction to accomplish the beneficent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muhammad v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
...stemming from his or her employment has recently been cited and applied in cases arising under Article 3 as well. E.g., Ex parte Byrom, 895 So.2d 942, 947 (Ala.2004); Ex parte Fryfogle, 742 So.2d 1258, 1260 (Ala.1999); and Ex parte Trinity Indus., Inc., 680 So.2d 262, 265-66 (Ala.1996). See......
-
Brown v. Patton (Ex parte Patton)
...motion. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that this Court's decision in Ex parte Byrom, 895 So.2d 942 (Ala.2004), “deemed controlling language contained in a footnote in Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So.2d 262 (Ala.1996), to the effect that ......
-
Ex Parte Dolgencorp, Inc., 1060428.
...Act, being remedial in nature, should be liberally construed in favor of the employee when reasonable doubts exist. See Ex parte Byrom, 895 So.2d 942, 946 (Ala.2004); Riley v. Perkins, 282 Ala. 629, 213 So.2d 796 (1968). Gibson's brief at 13. She has presented no argument or evidence, howev......
-
Brown v. Patsy Patton d/b/a Korner Store
...motion. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that this Court's decision in Ex parte Byrom, 895 So. 2d 942 (Ala. 2004), "deemed controlling language contained in a footnote in Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1 996), to the effect ......
-
The Appellate Corner
...No. 1080960 (Ala. April 22, 2011) The court rejected and abrogated the "but for" causation test espoused in dicta in Ex parte Byrom, 895 So. 2d 942 (Ala. 2004), and in Ex parte Trinity Industries, Inc., 680 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1996), for cases involving accidental injury on the job due to unfo......