Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Moore
| Citation | 196 So. 495,143 Fla. 103 |
| Parties | FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK et al. v. MOORE. |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1940 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
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.
Shackleford, Farrior & Shannon, of Tampa, for plaintiffs in error.
Alderman & Alderman and Lynn Gerald, all of Fort Myers, for defendant in error.
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.
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 injury and the employment or it must have had its origin in some risk incident to or connected with the employment or that it flowed from it as a natural consequence. Another definition widely approved is that the injury must occur within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental to it.
When the accident which resulted in Moore's death took place he was on a mission purely personal to himself and wife and had no connection whatever with his employment; it did not flow from nor was it in any way incident to his employment. The following cases are in one or more respects analogous to the case at bar and hold definitely that an employee is not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act if injured on a personal mission. New York Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 87 Cal.App. 105, 261 P. 1106; Lipinski v. Sutton Sales Company, 220 Mich. 647, 190 N.W. 705; Duggan v. Toombs-Fay Sash & Door Co., 228, Mo.App. 61, 66 S.W.2d 973; Grathwohl v. Nassau Point Club Properties, 216 A.D. 107, 214 N.Y.S. 496; Covey-Ballard Motor Company v. Industrial Commission, 64 Utah 1, 227 P. 1028; Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Industrial Accident Commission of Cal., 48 Cal.App. 572, 192 P. 166; Traders' & General Insurance Co. v. Ratcliff, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 223.
A great many more cases might be cited but the foregoing involve elements similar to those in the case at bar and we think conclude the question raised here. This must be the rule otherwise, the requirement that the accident arise out of and in connection with the employment is meaningless. It is not questioned that the deceased was at the time of his death on a very laudable mission, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams
...here, 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 no......
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson
...Moore, 143 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 On the entire record, no reversible error is made to appear. The judgment is affirmed. So ordered. BROWN, C. J., and WHITFIELD......
-
Heidtman v. Nevada Indus. Commission, 4448
...Red Arrow 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,......
-
Knabb v. Duner
... ... 889; ... Barse v. Whaley, 102 Fla. 404, 135 So. 879; ... Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Magwood, 107 Fla. 208, ... 145 So. 67; State v. Wright, 107 Fla. 178, 145 So ... 598; Town of Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 ... So. 279. See also McAdoo v. International Realty ... ...