Howard D. Sturgill & Sons v. Fairchild
| Citation | 647 S.W.2d 796 |
| Parties | HOWARD D. STURGILL & SONS, Appellant, v. Timothy FAIRCHILD and Kentucky Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1983 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
Howard VanAntwerp III, John I. Hanbury, VanAntwerp, Hughes, Monge & Jones, Ashland, for appellant.
Robert J. Greene, Paintsville, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court and the Workers' Compensation Board which determined that Fairchild was entitled to compensation benefits for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while returning home after picking up his paycheck at the home of his employer.
We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court and the opinion of the Board.
The issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law in reversing a finding of fact by the Board.
The employer argues that the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority and committed reversible error in overturning the Board's finding of fact that Fairchild was not on a mission which would benefit or be of service to his employer and was thus not compensable. They also maintain that the Board's finding was based on probative evidence and a correct application of the law.
Fairchild was injured in an automobile accident on August 31, 1977, when he was driving home after picking up his paycheck at the home of his employer. Fairchild's own home was in the opposite direction from that of his employer. The Board determined that the employer was not receiving a benefit or service at the time of the accident. This court agrees.
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error by reversing the Board's finding of fact. Where an employee is traveling between his home and the place of employment and is not performing some special service or benefit for his employer, his injuries are not sustained in the course of his employment. Brown v. Owsley, Ky.App., 564 S.W.2d 843 (1978).
The Board's determination that Fairchild's action was not of benefit or service to his employer is a finding of fact, not a conclusion of law. It is well settled that findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by evidence of probative value. The reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact.
Here the Board's finding that the actions of Fairchild were of no benefit or service to his employer is supported by the evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dee Whitaker Concrete v. Ellison
...carpooling was of benefit or service to Dee Whitaker Concrete is a finding of fact, not a conclusion of law. Howard D. Sturgill & Sons v. Fairchild, 647 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Ky. 1983). "It is well settled that findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by evidence of......
-
Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 2019-SC-0252-MR
... ... 1 There, Jenkins drove by Vincent Howard walking toward a vehicle and fired shots at him. The second shooting (also ... ...
-
Receveur Const. Company/Realm, Inc. v. Rogers
...who carpool without the knowledge or acquiescence of the employer are not providing a service to the employer); Howard D. Sturgill & Sons v. Fairchild, Ky., 647 S.W.2d 796 (1983) (a worker going to his employer's home to pick up his paycheck was not providing a service to the employer as th......
-
Olsten-Kimberly Quality Care v. Parr
...as opposed to travel for the convenience of the employee. See Brown v. Owsley, Ky.App., 564 S.W.2d 843 (1978); Howard D. Sturgill & Sons v. Fairchild, Ky., 647 S.W.2d 796 (1983); Farris v. Huston Barger Masonry, Inc., Ky ., 780 S.W.2d 611 (1989); Applegate v. Hord, Ky., 373 S.W.2d 430 (1963......