Lindbloom v. Chase Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 49594
Decision Date | 18 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 49594,49594 |
Citation | 344 So.2d 558 |
Parties | Marta Ellen LINDBLOOM, Petitioner, v. CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John G. Tomlinson, Jr., of Williams & Tomlinson, Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Linda M. Rigot, of Kates, Ress, Gomez & Rosenberg, North Miami, for respondents.
The petitioner presents the following point for review:
'The Judge of Industrial Claims erred in applying the going and coming rule when the uncontroverted evidence shows the transportation, to and from work, was a consideration incidental to the contract of employment, and that the employer provided free transportation to the claimant.'
However, the Judge of Industrial Claims made the following findings of fact:
The Commission's affirmance is in accordance with the essential requirements of law. Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So.2d 36 (Fla.1965).
Certiorari denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
George v. Woodville Lumber Co., QQ-49
...Nor was claimant's transportation to and from work an incident to or part of his contract of employment. Lindblom v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, 344 So.2d 558 (Fla.1977) appears analogous. Therein, the judge of industrial claims found as I find that the employee, Marta Lindb......