Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Moore

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtTERRELL, Chief Justice.
Citation196 So. 495,143 Fla. 103
PartiesFIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK et al. v. MOORE.
Decision Date21 May 1940

196 So. 495

143 Fla. 103

FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK et al.
v.
MOORE.

Florida Supreme Court

May 21, 1940


En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Lee County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.

Proceeding by Mrs. Charles S. Moore, Jr., to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Charles S. Moore, Jr., employee, opposed by Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Incorporated, employer, and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, insurance carrier. Decree affirming an award of compensation by the Industrial Commission, and the employer and insurance carrier being error.

Reversed.

BUFORD and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissenting.

COUNSEL [196 So. 496]

[143 Fla. 104] Shackleford, Farrior & Shannon, of Tampa, for plaintiffs in error.

Alderman & Alderman and Lynn Gerald, all of Fort Myers, for defendant in error.

OPINION

TERRELL, Chief Justice.

Prior to his death on December 8, 1937, Charles S. Moore, Jr., was an employee of Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Inc. He was secretary and treasurer of the company and manager of its parts department. The company maintained a twenty-four hours service, making it necessary for Moore to be available at any time.

On Sunday night, December 5, 1937, Charles S. Moore, Jr., went to his place of business, turned off the lights which he left on earlier in the evening, carried his wife home, and started back at once. On the way back to his place of business, his car struck a palm tree resulting in injuries from which he died a few days later. His widow, the appellee, filed her claim for compensation which the Florida Industrial Commission investigated and awarded benefits to Mrs. Moore at the rate of $11.27 per week for not exceeding 350 weeks From that award, Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Inc., and its insurance carrier appealed to the Circuit Court which affirmed the award of the Industrial Commission. The present appeal is from the decree of the Circuit Court approving the award.

[143 Fla. 105] The essential question for determination may be stated as follows: Under the facts detailed did the injury and death of Charles S. Moore, Jr., arise out of and in the course of his employment as contemplated under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1935, c. 17481)?

There is no dispute about the essential facts. It is admitted that Moore was an officer and an employee of Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Inc., that said company maintained a twenty-four hours service, and that the deceased was subject to call at any time, that on the evening he was killed he was at his place of business and went in his own car to carry his wife home and was killed while returning to his place of business in the manner stated.

The cases generally hold that for an injury to arise out of and in the course of one's employment, there must be some causal connection between the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...the employee is not in the course and scope of employment, so the injury is not compensable. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, 496 (1940) (holding that generally, "the injury must occur within the period of the employment").Of course, although not addr......
  • Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 24, 1941
    ...as stated, we do not adopt such rule but adhere to the rule established in Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Moore, 143 [4 So.2d 380.] Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, and in Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348. The factual conditions differentiate this case from the Moore case and the Allen case. On ......
  • Knabb v. Duner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 21, 1940
    ...Inc., supra. There are no errors in the orders challenged. The same are affirmed. So ordered. TERRELL, C.J., and THOMAS, JJ., concur. [143 Fla. 103] WHITFIELD, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws......
  • Heidtman v. Nevada Indus. Commission, No. 4448
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • February 7, 1962
    ...Bonded Messenger Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of Cal., 39 Cal.App.2d 559, 103 P.2d 1004; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495; Parker v. Twin Falls County, 62 Idaho 291, 111 P.2d 865; Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission, 395 Ill. 238, 69 N.E.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams, No. 1D17-96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 5, 2019
    ...the employee is not in the course and scope of employment, so the injury is not compensable. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, 496 (1940) (holding that generally, "the injury must occur within the period of the employment").Of course, although not addr......
  • Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 24, 1941
    ...as stated, we do not adopt such rule but adhere to the rule established in Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Moore, 143 [4 So.2d 380.] Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, and in Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348. The factual conditions differentiate this case from the Moore case and the Allen case. On ......
  • Knabb v. Duner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 21, 1940
    ...Inc., supra. There are no errors in the orders challenged. The same are affirmed. So ordered. TERRELL, C.J., and THOMAS, JJ., concur. [143 Fla. 103] WHITFIELD, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws......
  • Heidtman v. Nevada Indus. Commission, No. 4448
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • February 7, 1962
    ...Bonded Messenger Corp. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of Cal., 39 Cal.App.2d 559, 103 P.2d 1004; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495; Parker v. Twin Falls County, 62 Idaho 291, 111 P.2d 865; Public Service Co. v. Industrial Commission, 395 Ill. 238, 69 N.E.2d......
  • 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