Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, No. 13462

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtHADEN
Citation208 S.E.2d 291,158 W.Va. 66
PartiesRichard HARRIS v. STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and S. M. Kisner & Sons.
Docket NumberNo. 13462
Decision Date24 September 1974

Page 291

208 S.E.2d 291
158 W.Va. 66
Richard HARRIS
v.
STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and S. M. Kisner & Sons.
No. 13462.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Sept. 24, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. 'The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is a fact finding body, and its rulings on questions of fact will not be reversed or set aside by this Court unless clearly wrong.' Syllabus point 3, Sowder v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, W.Va., 189 S.E.2d 674 (1972).

2. 'An injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such (Workmen's Compensation) fund, unless the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from his work.' Syllabus point 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32, 83 S.E. 88 (1914).

C. R. Nutter, Clarksburg, for appellant.

Johnson & Johnson, Charles G. Johnson, Clarksburg, for S. M. Kisner & Sons.

Otis Mann, Jr., Charleston, for Workmen's Comp. Com'r.

[158 W.Va. 67] HADEN, Justice:

Claimant appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Page 292

which affirmed two previous rulings of the State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner that an injury sustained by the claimant was not suffered in the course of and as a result of his employment and therefore was not compensable from proceeds of the Workmen's Compensation Fund.

Richard Harris was an hourly worker employed by S. M. Kisner & Sons Company as a roofer. Pursuant to directions from his employer, the claimant reported to work on the morning of November 21, 1972, in Fairmont, West Virginia, at a job site. Due to poor weather conditions the crew was unable to commence work on the job in Fairmont that morning. Rather than lose the entire work day to the inclement weather, the employer advised his assembled employees that if they wished they could go to Clarksburg to another job site at the FOURCO Glass Plant, and there engage in some sheet metal work on the glass plant building. Before departing for the Clarksburg job site, the claimant informed his supervisor that he did not have with him the necessary tools to perform his job. Accordingly, he requested permission to return home to pick up his tools before proceeding to the Clarksburg job site. The supervisor and the managing partner of the employer informed the claimant that if he desired to work on that day he should pick up his tools.

While proceeding from the Fairmont job site to the claimant's home in his own automobile, the claimant sustained serious personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident involving a third person which occurred on the Saltwell Road, a public highway located in Harrison County, West Virginia.

According to the employer's work rules, all hourly employees were required as a condition of employment, to have with them their personal work tools at every job site, and were also required to furnish their own transportation to and from job sites. Additionally, such employees[158 W.Va. 68] began earning hourly pay once any job had been commenced but the employer did not pay his employees for time spent at a job site in anticipation of beginning a particular job. On the other hand, if one job at a particular geographical site was completed within a work day, and time remained for the commencement of work at a second remote site, the employer compensated its workers for travel to the second work site.

On the day of claimant's injury the evidence demonstrated that no hourly workers were paid for the time consumed before commencement of the job at the second work site in Clarksburg, West Virginia, with the exception of the claimant. Sometime after his injury, Harris sent his son to the employer's office to clock-in one and a half hours time on his timecard for the day...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Falls v. Union Drilling Inc., No. 33907.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 10, 2008
    ...the "going and coming" rule that we have recognized is the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), we "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premis......
  • Brown v. City of Wheeling, No. 30243.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 2, 2002
    ...exception to "the going and coming" rule is known as the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court stated the exception as "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his e......
  • Williby v. West Virginia Office Ins. Com'R, No. 34455.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 2, 2009
    ...and coming" rule that this Court has recognized is the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-pr......
  • Calloway v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, No. 14719
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 15, 1980
    ...attempting to spring into the air and make a full turn before landing. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, W.Va., 208 S.E.2d 291 (1974), we recognized the general rule that an employee traveling to and from work in his private vehicle is not within the scope of his emplo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Falls v. Union Drilling Inc., No. 33907.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 10, 2008
    ...the "going and coming" rule that we have recognized is the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), we "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premis......
  • Brown v. City of Wheeling, No. 30243.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 2, 2002
    ...exception to "the going and coming" rule is known as the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court stated the exception as "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his e......
  • Williby v. West Virginia Office Ins. Com'R, No. 34455.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 2, 2009
    ...and coming" rule that this Court has recognized is the "special errand" exception. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71, 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-pr......
  • Calloway v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, No. 14719
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 15, 1980
    ...attempting to spring into the air and make a full turn before landing. In Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, W.Va., 208 S.E.2d 291 (1974), we recognized the general rule that an employee traveling to and from work in his private vehicle is not within the scope of his emplo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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