Hall v. Auburntown Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1985 |
| Citation | 684 S.W.2d 614 |
| Parties | Linda Sue HALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AUBURNTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC., and Gulf and Western Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Frank Buck, Smithville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph C. Wilson, III, Chattanooga, for defendants-appellants.
In this worker's compensation case the trial court awarded benefits to the plaintiff-employee who sustained a ruptured intervertebral disc. The only issue raised by the defendant on this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff's injury and resulting disability "arose out of" as well as "in the course of" her employment with the defendant. See T.C.A., § 50-6-102(a)(4). The operative facts are essentially undisputed. The evidence shows that the plaintiff, who was a sewing machine operator for Auburntown Industries, on the date of her accident was instructed to watch another operator in order to learn a new technique; then while doing so the plaintiff sat on a cart equipped with coaster wheels which ordinarily was used to transport materials in the defendant's plant; that while she was observing, as instructed, her foreman came and instructed her to return to her department to perform her regular duties; that in compliance with this instruction the plaintiff rose from the sitting position and in so doing twisted in an effort to go through a space which the record shows to be between 12 and 18 inches in width; and as she thus rose and twisted to make this maneuver she felt something "pop" in her back and immediately began to suffer severe pain in her low back.
In her testimony, the plaintiff described her accident in the following words:
Of course, there is no question that this accident occurred "in the course of" the plaintiff's duties. The dispute is about whether it "arises out of" them.
The plaintiff's physician, Dr. Alexander Chernowitz, testified as follows:
The defendant argues that the plaintiff's injury was such that it could have been sustained almost anywhere, in a variety of ordinary situations; that it was not the result of a hazard peculiar to the employment. It is ingeniously, if not persuasively, argued that an injury is not compensable if it is one that might as easily have occurred in the employee's home or while she was engaged in her personal pursuits. It is true enough that, to be compensable, an injury must have some causal relation to the employee's work. It is not within the worker's compensation law if it is only "coincidental, or contemporaneous, or collateral" to it. Jackson v. Clark & Fay, Inc., 197 Tenn. 135, 270 S.W.2d 389 (1954).
A number of our cases contain language to the same effect. See Jackson v. Clark & Ray, Inc., supra; Sandlin v. Gentry, 201 Tenn. 509, 300 S.W.2d 897 (1957); Knox v. Batson, 217 Tenn. 620, 399 S.W.2d 765 (1966); Hill v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Tenn., 512 S.W.2d 560 (1974); Sudduth v. Williams, Tenn., 517 S.W.2d 520 (1974). But, as is frequently the case, it is easy to mistake the rule of these cases by extending their dicta beyond the confines of their facts.
In Jackson, the employee was killed when the truck in which he was riding from his work to his sleeping quarters was overtaken by a storm. In Hill, a night watchman died when the building he was guarding collapsed in a tornado. The decedents in Knox v. Batson, were asphyxiated in a motel room where they had taken temporary quarters while working on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bialecke v. Chattanooga Publishing Company, No. E2005-2560-WC-R3-CV (Tenn. 8/18/2006)
...is to be resolved in favor of the employee. White v. Werthan Indus., 824 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tenn. 1992); Hall v. Auburntown Indus., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Tenn. 1985). The general rule in Tennessee is that an injury sustained by an employee driving to or from work is not compensable under......
-
Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc.
...a rational connection to the work and occurs while the employee is engaged in the duties of his employment. Hall v. Auburntown Industries, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Tenn.1985); Bell v. Kelso Oil Co., 597 S.W.2d 731, 734 Except in the most obvious, simple and routine cases, the claimant in ......
-
Wilhelm v. Krogers
...causal connection to the work and occurs while the employee is engaged in the duties of his employment. . . ." Hall v. Auburntown Indus., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Tenn. 1985). [T]he mere presence of an employee at the place of injury because of his employment will not alone result in the ......
-
Coleman v. St. Thomas Hosp..
...“it is easy to mistake the rule of these cases by extending their dicta beyond the confines of their facts.” Hall v. Auburntown Indus., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tenn.1985). The Court further explained that “there is no requirement of a special risk in a case like this one, where it is obv......