Handy v. Kentucky State Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1960 |
| Citation | 335 S.W.2d 560 |
| Parties | Garrett HANDY, Appellant, v. KENTUCKY STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Darnell & Johnson, Frankfort, for appellant.
James M. Graves, Boehl, Stopher, Graves & Deindoerfer, Louisville, for appellees.
WADDILL, Commissioner.
The appeal is from a judgment confirming an order of the Workmen's Compensation Board dismissing appellant's application seeking compensation benefits. The crucial question in the case is whether the injuries which appellant sustained arose out of and in the course of his employment with appellee.
Appellant was employed as a handy man by appellee, Department of Highways, and both he and his employer were operating under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, KRS 342.001 et seq. Appellant resided at Wellington in Menifee County, which is approximately 60 miles from the place in Lewis County where he worked for appellee. Appellant decided to commute from his home to the place of his employment. His hours of employment were from 7:30 a. m., to 4:00 p. m.
On November 8, 1957, at approximately 3:30 a. m., appellant left his home in Menifee County on his way to Lewis County. While en route to his place of employment, he lost control of his truck and was seriously injured when his truck went off the highway. There was no other vehicle involved.
The accident occurred sometime between 7:00 and 7:30 a. m., at a place located about 10 miles from his job-site. Appellant had performed no duties for appellee prior to his accident, nor was he required by appellee to travel to and from his home to work each day.
Pursuant to a certain order issued by appellee on November 8, 1957, appellant was paid the sum of 30cents an hour over his base pay because he was working in a county other than the county in which he lived. The order issued by appellee on November 8 reads as follows:
It is urged in behalf of appellant that an employee while going to or returning from his work is actually in the course of his employment where there is either an express or implied undertaking by the employer to provide transportation or to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dee Whitaker Concrete v. Ellison
...Kentucky Jurisprudence, Workers' Compensation, § 10-3 (revised 1990). Also see [Tichenor, 396 S.W.2d 794, and Handy v. Kentucky State Highway Dep't, 335 S.W.2d 560 (Ky. 1960)].Here, it is undisputed that travel was a requirement of Ellison's employment as the crew daily performed work away ......
-
Olsten-Kimberly Quality Care v. Parr
...Workers' Compensation, § 10-3 (revised 1990). Also see Black v. Tichenor, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 794 (1965), and Handy v. Kentucky State Highway Dep't, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 560 (1960). Herein, the ALJ stated the applicable standard regarding the service to the employer exception to the going and coming......
-
Feltner v. PJ Operations, LLC, 2016-CA-001536-MR
...v. Parr , 965 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Ky. 1998). See also [...] Black v. Tichenor , 396 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1965) ; Handy v. Kentucky State Highway Dep't , ––– Ky. ––––, 335 S.W.2d 560 (1960). Certainly, this matter does not involve workers' compensation issues. Nevertheless, we believe the same gener......
-
Collins v. Research
...Care v. Parr, 965 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Ky.1998). See also see Black v. Tichenor, 396 S.W.2d 794 (Ky.1965); Handy v. Kentucky State Highway Dep't, ––– Ky. ––––, 335 S.W.2d 560 (1960). Certainly, this matter does not involve workers' compensation issues. Nevertheless, we believe the same general ......