Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 38734
Decision Date | 03 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 38734,38734 |
Citation | 228 So.2d 898 |
Parties | John E. HUDDOCK, Petitioner, v. GRANT MOTOR COMPANY, Corporate Group Service, Inc., and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
L. C. Schowe, of Riley, Davis, Schowe & Saltsman, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Martin J. Jones, of Earle, Jones & Chambers, St. Petersburg, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.
Petitioner, a workmen's compensation claimant, seeks reversal of an Order of the Full Commission which in part reads as follows: 'The sole question for our solution on this appeal is whether or not the claimant was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.' The Full Commission then determined that the Judge of Industrial Claims was correct in holding that under the facts as found by him, claimant was injured in an accident which did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. It affirmed the Compensation Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims, which deals with many other facets of the litigation including the extent and nature of injuries, attorneys fees and other matters common to these cases. Although in disposing of the Application for Review in Full Commission dealt only with the question of whether claimant was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, it is conceded that claimant did not abandon the five additional grounds for review on the basis of which he sought reversal of the Judge's Compensation Order. It is therefore obvious that in light of our finding that the Full Commission was in error, this case should be remanded to the Full Commission to pass upon the other points raised and argued before it in the original Application for Review.
The employer argues that there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the Judge of Industrial Claims and that, therefore, his order should be approved. 1 With this basic contention we do not agree. The Material facts essential to a determination of whether the employee was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment are not in dispute. The question of coverage, then, is one of law. 2
There is some dispute as to whether the original employment contract between claimant, a used car salesman, and his employer, a used car dealer, included the furnishing of an automobile for transportation to and from claimant's home. The record undisputably establishes the fact that some weeks after the contract of employment was entered into, the employer authorized claimant's use of a used car for his travel to and from work each day. The employer also furnished daily a fixed quantity of gasoline for such purpose.
It has long been established in Florida that when an employer agrees in the original employment contract to provide an employee transportation to and from his place of employment, an injury to the employee which occurs while he is being transported in compliance with the agreement is considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. 3 Transportation of an employee between his home and place of employment may become an incident to and part of a contract of employment, even though it is not included in the initial employment contract, under the following well established principle: 4
Whatever may have been the original understanding, it is clearly established that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
...employer provides the employee's transportation to and from work incident to an express or implied agreement. See Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 228 So.2d 898, 899-900 (Fla. 1969); Povia Bros. Farms v. Velez, 74 So.2d 103, 104-05 (Fla.1954). Section 440.092(2) eliminates this exception when th......
-
Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool
...circumstances. E. g., Grillo v. Gorney Beauty Shops, Co., 249 So.2d 13 (Fla.1971) (employee traveling for employer); Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 228 So.2d 898 (Fla.1969) (transportation furnished by employer); Naranja Rock Co. v. Dawal Farms, 74 So.2d 282 (Fla.1954) (special hazard in Argua......
-
Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh
...allowance plus travel expenses clearly shows the inapplicability of the "going and coming rule" in this case. See Huddock v. Grant Motor Company, 228 So.2d 898 (Fla.1969); Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So.2d 36 (Fla.1965). Both the holding and the discussion in our recent decision......
-
Reynolds v. Ferman Oldsmobile Co.
...employment agreement. This fact can be implied from the general practices or customs of the employer. This Court in Huddock v. Grant Motor Company, 228 So.2d 898 (Fla.1969) 'It has long been established in Florida that when an employer agrees in the original employment contract to provide a......