Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider
| Decision Date | 09 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. BC-464,BC-464 |
| Citation | 473 So.2d 829,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1911 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1911 HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, INC., Whiting National Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Robert G. KRIDER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David J. Williams, and Manuela C. Napier, of Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, Lakeland, for appellants.
Robert G. Thornhill, of Howell & Thornhill, Winter Haven, for appellee.
Employer/carrier seek review of a workers' compensation order by which claimant was awarded medical and temporary disability benefits. We affirm the order appealed.
Claimant was injured when struck by an automobile while walking across a road adjacent to employer's premises. The injury occurred during working hours, and claimant had left the work premises to purchase cigarettes at a nearby convenience store. Claimant testified that he had no regularly scheduled breaks, but rather was allowed to attend to his personal comfort during lulls in the employment. Although employer had an on-premises snack bar with a cigarette vending machine, claimant indicated that the employees generally frequented the convenience store across the street because it had a better selection of goods and was more economical. Employer's plant superintendent admitted that the employees routinely frequented the convenience store to purchase food, drinks, and cigarettes during working hours. The superintendent stated that it was company policy to discourage such off-premises trips, and suggested that the employees should "clock out" before departing the premises. However, there is no indication that such a policy was enforced or ever communicated to claimant.
In awarding benefits the deputy commissioner found that claimant's injury occurred during a refreshment break, and that claimant "was not in violation of any company rule...." The record provides competent substantial evidence in support of these determinations, and to the extent that they encompass issues of credibility they are within the ambit of the deputy's fact-finding authority. See Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 328 So.2d 429 (Fla.1976).
An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment. See Cunningham v. Scotty's Home Builders, 9 FCR 1 (1973), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 182 (Fla.1974). In Cunningham the claimant was injured while returning from a convenience...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gravette v. Electronics
...has not been considered to be a deviation removing a claimant from the course and scope of employment. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., v. Krider, 473 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Entitlement to compensation would therefore appear to be reasonably arguable for claimant in the present case......
-
Sedgwick CMS v. Valcourt-Williams
..."arising out of" limitation, and we have not always been consistent in our application of that limitation. For example, in Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider , this court upheld a claimant's award where the claimant had been hit by a car after leaving work to buy cigarettes. 473 So.2......
-
Soya v. Health First, Inc.
...can be read with our prior caselaw. Therefore, I join the majority opinion.1 Two of those cases were Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider , 473 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Bayfront Medical Center v. Harding , 653 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), where the claimants were injured......
-
Monette v. Manatee Memorial Hosp.
...1988); (2) an employee's injury incurred during a work break to buy cigarettes and then struck by a car; Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider, 473 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); (3) employee injured while using restroom at work, Citrus Memorial Hospital v. Cabrera, 388 So.2d 345 (Fla. ......