Frank Lyon Co. v. Oats
Citation | 225 Ark. 682,284 S.W.2d 637 |
Decision Date | 12 December 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 5-803,5-803 |
Parties | FRANK LYON CO. et al., Appellants, v. Raymond OATS, Appellee. * |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Goodwin & Riffel, Little Rock, for appellant.
Wright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is a Workmen's Compensation claim by appellee, a traveling salesman; and is resisted by appellant (employer) on the contention that the appellee's injuries did not arise 'out of and in the course of employment'. 1 The Workmen's Compensation Commission made an award in favor of the claimant; the Circuit Court affirmed; and the employer has brought this appeal.
Mr. Oats was employed by Frank Lyon Company as a traveling salesman. His territory consisted of ten counties in Western Arkansas and three adjacent counties in Oklahoma. The eastern boundary of Mr. Oats' territory was a north and south line about forty miles west of the Town of Perry and approximately ninety miles west of Little Rock. Mr. Oats worked on a commission basis, furnishing his own car and paying his own expenses. Mr. Oats, a single man, resided with his parents in the Town of Perry, which is not in his territory. He would leave Perry Monday morning, drive westerly to his territory, work in the territory until Friday evening, and then return to Perry for Friday night. On Saturday morning he was required to go to Little Rock to attend a sales meeting at 9:00 o'clock at the Frank Lyon Company. That meeting closed at noon or thereafter; and then Mr. Oats was free to return to Perry for Sunday and be ready to resume working in his territory Monday. The fact that Mr. Oats stayed with his parents in Perry and returned there after each Saturday sales meeting was known to the Frank Lyon Company.
The injuries which Mr. Oats received, as herein involved, occurred on Saturday afternoon when his car went out of control as he was returning to Perry after having attended a sales meeting. The sole question is whether the injuries were received presence at the sales meeting was required the same as was the attendance of the three other salesmen, who were residents of Little Rock; and that under the 'going and coming rule' the employee is not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law, Ark.Stats. § 81-1301 et seq., for injuries occurring en route to the place of business. In addition to the cases from our own State--hereinafter to be mentioned--appellant cites such cases as Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 1 Cal.2d 730, 37 P.2d 441, 96 A.L.R. 460; Covey-Ballard Motor Co. v. Industrial Comm., 64 Utah 1, 227 P. 1028; Lunde v. Congoleum-Nairn Co., 211 Minn. 487, 1 N.W.2d 606; and Dooley v. Smith Trans. Co., 57 A.2d 554, 26 N.J.Misc. 129.
For an injury to an employee to be compensable under the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Law the injury must, among other essentials, arise 'out of and in the course of employment'; and as regards most workers, injuries sustained in going to or returning from work are held to be non-compensable. Such injuries are ruled out of compensability because of the 'going and coming rule'. 2 In 58 Am.Jur. 723 this rule is stated:
There are many, many well recognized exceptions to the 'going and coming rule'; and employees coming within such exceptions are held to have received their injuries arising 'out of and in the course of employment'. We list only a few such exceptions:
(a) Where the employer furnishes a method of transportation. See Hunter v. Summerville, 205 Ark. 463, 169 S.W.2d 579; and Tinsman Mfg. Co. v. Sparks, 211 Ark. 554, 201 S.W.2d 573.
(b) When the employee is injured while in close proximity to the place of business. See Bales v. Service Club, 208 Ark. 692, 187 S.W.2d 321.
(c) When the employee has a duty to perform for the employer while en route home.
(d) Another exception to the 'going and coming rule', and involved in the present case, is the so-called 'traveling salesman rule'.
In 58 Am.Jur. 730, in discussing the compensability of injuries to employees, the performance of whose duties necessitates their traveling from place to place away from the premises of the employer, the text states:
'The course of the employment of a traveling salesman, for the purposes of workmen's compensation, covers both the time and place of the traveling as well as of the selling of goods.'
And under the traveling salesman exception employees have received compensation in a vast variety of situations. 3 In 71 C.J. 704 to 706 the holdings are summarized in this language:
Professor Larson, in his treatise on 'Workmen's Compensation Law', says in Vol. 1, § 16.00:
* * *'
Schneider, in his text on 'Workmen's Compensation', Permanent Ed., Vol. 7, § 1665, summarized the holdings allowing traveling salesmen to recover in this language:
'Where the trip or attendance is one which the employer ordered or directed, or is for the sole benefit of the employer, or is to the mutual advantage of both the employer and his employee, compensation may be recovered.'
There are numerous cases involving factual situations somewhat similar or analogous to the case at bar, and in which the employee was allowed compensation. For some such, see Teshnor v. F. E. Compton & Co., 263 App.Div. 160, 32 N.Y.S.2d 266; State ex rel. McCarthy v. Dist. Court, 141 Minn. 61, 169 N.W. 274; Harby v. Marwell, 203 App.Div. 525, 196 N.Y.S. 729; Solar-Sturges Mfg. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. United Auto Workers Intern. Union
...Club, 208 Ark. 692, 187 S.W.2d 321; Owens v. Southeast Arkansas Transportation Co., 216 Ark. 950, 228 S.W.2d 646; Frank Lyon Co. v. Oates, 225 Ark. 682, 284 S.W.2d 637. The decision in the case of Fine Nest Trailer Colony v. Reep, 235 Ark. 411, 360 S.W.2d 189, is also distinguishable. There......
-
Williams v. Central Flying Service, Inc.
...as an employer. Claimants cite our own cases of Fine Nest Trailer Colony v. Reep, 235 Ark. 411, 360 S.W.2d 189; Frank Lyon Co. v. Oates, 225 Ark. 682, 284 S.W.2d 637; and Robbins v. Jackson, 232 Ark. 658, 339 S.W.2d 417. Claimants also cite many cases from other jurisdictions, some of which......
-
Van Dalsen v. Inman
...returning home, and it is claimed that these cases govern in the case at bar. Such a workmen's compensation case is Frank Lyon Co. v. Oates, 225 Ark. 682, 284 S.W.2d 637. But the liability of the Jim Walter Corporation in the case at bar is to be determined by the 'scope of employment' case......
-
Linton v. Arkansas Department of Corrections
...Lepard v. West Memphis Machine & Welding, 51 Ark.App. 53, 908 S.W.2d 666 (1995). Linton also cites the decision in Frank Lyon Co. v. Oats, 225 Ark. 682, 284 S.W.2d 637 (1955), as support for his argument. In that case, the claimant was awarded compensation for his injuries sustained in an a......