Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops Co., 40536

Decision Date09 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 40536,40536
Citation249 So.2d 13
CourtFlorida Supreme Court
PartiesDorothy GRILLO, Petitioner, v. GORNEY BEAUTY SHOPS CO. et al., Respondents.

Dudley Burton, Miami, for petitioner.

George V. Lanza, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

ERVIN, Justice.

Petitioner Mrs. Dorothy Grillo, a workmen's compensation claimant, seeks review of an Industrial Relations Commission Order affirming the Judge of Industrial Claims decision that she was not injured in an accident arising out of the course and scope of her employment. We find that she was, and that as a matter of law her injury is compensable.

Petitioner was employed by Respondent Gorney Beauty Shops Company as an assistant to the vice-president, Harold Gorney, and as a traveling supervisor. She originally operated in the corporation's New England District, however at her request she was transferred to the Southern District. In October 1968 she moved her residence to Miami, Florida. She made business trips that month to several Florida cities as well as to New Orleans and New York.

Around the sixth of November she was sent to Charlotte, North Carolina, to supervise the opening of two new beauty shops. From that time until her accident on December 22, 1968 she remained in Charlotte during the week; however she flew to Miami each week-end to be with her husband. Gorney Beauty Shops paid for all but one of these week-end trips.

In December, Mr. Gorney told Mrs. Grillo that she could help out in the Miami shop and spend Christmas in Miami with her husband if she were to come to Miami at least a week before Christmas; however, according to Gorney:

'* * * I said anything short of a week wouldn't do us any good. I said, 'It was just useless to even think about it.' Then she said to me, 'I don't think I am going to Miami. I may spend Christmas holidays here in Charlotte with my mother.''

Mrs. Grillo worked in one of the Charlotte shops until 5:30 p.m. December 21. The following morning she left for Miami in an automobile driven by one of her stepsons. She was injured in an accident in South Carolina and is completely paralyzed from the neck down and unable to do anything but talk.

The employer/carrier paid her medical bills for over a year after the accident, however prior to the hearing they terminated payments.

Following the hearing on Petitioner's claim, the Judge of Industrial Claims found for Respondents, holding that:

'* * * the automobile accident of December 22, 1968, did not arise out of the course and scope of her employment with Gorney Beauty Shops since Claimant was traveling home for the Christmas holidays and not to work the Miami store, therefore, she was on a frolic of her own.'

In a 2--1 decision, the Industrial Relations Commission affirmed. We disagree.

In her Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioner raises many questions. We only need to consider one: whether a traveling supervisor who is injured while returning from her employer's place of business in North Carolina to her home in Florida is traveling in the course of her employment. We find that in the instant case she was.

Generally, accidents occurring when an employee is 'going to' or 'coming from' work are not compensable. (Blount v. State Road Department, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 507). There are exceptions, however, to this rule. In Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 36, 37, this Court said:

'The rule for determining whether or not the particular facts of a case bring it within the going and coming rule or make it an exception thereto was laid down for this jurisdiction by Southern States Mfg. Co. v. Wright (1941, 146 Fla. 29, 200 So.2d 375), wherein we said:

'Generally it appears that the employer's liability in such cases depends upon whether or not there is a contract between employer and employee, express or implied, covering the matter of transportation to and from work.'

'Once an obligation to furnish transportation is demonstrated, by whatever means satisfied, then '(t)he hazards of the highway (are) inherent' in the contract of employment and claims arising therefrom are compensable as arising out of and in the course of the employment.'

There were no written contracts between Mrs. Grillo and Gorney Beauty Shops; all contractual arrangements...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2001
    ...traveling employees, which allows compensation for traveling employees injured during their travel status. See Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops Co., 249 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla.1971). Section 440.092(4) limits the traveling employee exception when an employee is merely traveling to or from work. See......
  • Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1979
    ...injuries are as a rule noncompensable. But numerous exceptions allow compensation in certain circumstances. E. g., Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops, Co., 249 So.2d 13 (Fla.1971) (employee traveling for employer); Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 228 So.2d 898 (Fla.1969) (transportation furnished by......
  • Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1983
    ...was an essential part of his employment. Coverage has long been the rule in Florida under these circumstances. See, Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops Co., 249 So.2d 13 (Fla.1971), and Zipperer v. Peninsular Life Insurance Company, 235 So.2d 473 (Fla.1970), and cases and authorities therein cite......
  • Fields v. State, 40852
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1971

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