Lytle v. Arkansas Trucking Services, CA

• Decision Date: 12 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: 54 Ark.App. 73,923 S.W.2d 292
• Parties: Sid LYTLE, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TRUCKING SERVICES and Gibraltar National, Appellees. 95-986.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 292

923 S.W.2d 292

54 Ark.App. 73

Sid LYTLE, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS TRUCKING SERVICES and Gibraltar National, Appellees.

No. CA 95-986.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas,

Division II.

June 12, 1996.

Robert H. Montgomery, Little Rock, for appellant.

Mike Roberts, Little Rock, for appellee.

MAYFIELD, Judge.

Sid Lytle has appealed a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission which held that he was not acting within the course of his employment when his automobile accident occurred and therefore his claim is not compensable.

The appellant, an over-the-road truck driver, testified that he was injured on July 3, 1992, when he topped a hill on I-20 outside Meridian, Mississippi, and came upon an accident that had already occurred. According to appellant's testimony, he was on his way from Center, Texas, to Metamora, Illinois, to deliver a load for his employer, the appellant. He said that he was scheduled to be in Metamora four days later; that he had an extra 2 1/2 days; and that he was making a side trip to visit friends when the accident occurred. After the visit, appellant planned to go to Metamora and unload.

Appellant testified the appellee is not a routed carrier, and he is paid a flat rate based upon the mileage for each trip. He said his job is to pick up a load on time; get it there on time by the easiest and best route; and that there are no set routes for him to take. He testified further that the shortest route from Center to Metamora is to take Highway 59 from Center to I-30, then to I-40, then to I-55 and then straight up to Metamora which is just outside of Peoria. He testified that he took that route on a previous trip to Metamora passing up I-20, but on this trip he deviated onto I-20 before reaching I-30 and was at least 100 miles out of route when he had the accident.

Mark Bottoms, appellee's dispatch supervisor at the time of the accident, testified that company policy is for the driver to take the shortest route from Point A to Point B; to stay within that route; and to deliver to the destination. He said the appellee is a routed carrier which means you take the shortest route; that the carrier routes the driver; and that it gives him specific directions. He said the appellant deviated from his specific route on July 3, 1992, when he deviated onto I-20 to Meridian, Mississippi. Bottoms testified he gave the appellant the dispatch on July 3, and appellant did not tell him he was going to take time off to go to Meridian. He said it is the general practice for a driver who has excessive time to call and if there is something en route he wants to do or deviate, appellee is open to working with the driver.

Appellee's "Policies, Procedures and Agreement" states that all trucks are routed over specific routes and that a driver agrees to accept all dispatch as given with no deviation from destination or route specified.

On this evidence the law judge held appellant's injuries were not job related; that appellant was traveling away from his business route; and that his "clearly identifiable" personal side trip was a "substantial deviation" from his business trip and not in the course of his employment. The full Commission affirmed and adopted the law judge's decision.

Appellant argues his claim is compensable under the "dual purpose" doctrine because he was serving both a business and personal motive en route to Meridian.

When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979).

The dual purpose doctrine is set forth in 1 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 18.00 (1990) as follows:

Injury during a trip which serves both a business and a personal purpose is within the course of employment if the trip involves the performance of a service for the employer which would have caused the trip to be taken by someone even if it had not coincided with the personal journey. This principle applies to out-of-town trips, to trips to and from work, and to miscellaneous errands such as visits to bars or restaurants...