O'Meara v. Beasley

Decision Date04 July 1949
Docket Number4-8857
Citation221 S.W.2d 882,215 Ark. 665
PartiesO'Meara v. Beasley
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal fro Miller Circuit Court; Dexter Bush, Judge.

Reversed.

J Ed Morneau, for appellant.

OPINION

Minor W. Millwee, Justice.

Appellant, Robert W. O'Meara, was drilling for oil at a location in Little River county about eight miles north of Texarkana, Arkansas, in August, 1946. Hershel L Williams, Clyde Redl, Noel A. Beasley, and F. G. Tisdale members of the drilling crew, had started to work in Williams' automobile with Redl driving about 11:00 p. m. August 21, 1946, when the car in which they were riding collided with another automobile resulting in Williams' death and injury to the other three occupants.

Claims for compensation benefits were filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission by Hershel Williams' widow and the three injured employees. The commission found that the death of Williams and the injuries sustained by the other claimants did not arise out of and in the course of their employment and said claims were denied after hearings before one commissioner and the full commission.

On appeal to circuit court, the findings and order of the commission were reversed and compensation in the amount of $ 7,000 was ordered paid in a lump sum to the widow of Hershel L. Williams and the other three claims were remanded to the commission to determine the sole question of the amount of compensation due them. The employer and his insurance carrier have appealed.

After extensive findings of fact, the commission reached the following "conclusions of law": "Claimants contend that they are entitled to compensation benefits because they were injured at a time and in such a manner that it could be said that their injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of their employment. We do not agree with this contention. From the evidence presented in this case it appears that these employees were injured in an automobile accident at the intersection of 9th and Hickory streets in the city of Texarkana, Arkansas, several miles from the site of their employment which was an oil well some distance from the city of Texarkana. The employees at the time of the injury were en route to work and, construing the evidence in the most favorable light for these claimants, it may be conceded that they were following the most direct route to the site of their employment deviating from this route only when necessary to pick up various employees at their homes.

"The general rule is that injuries occurring to employees en route to or from their employment and outside the premises of their employer are not compensable under the law. Claimants argue however, that this case falls within an exception to that general rule in that they were being transported to their work by their employer. This Commission has always recognized that injuries received while being transported to and from one's employment by the employer are compensable and we feel that such is a valid and legal exception to the general rule regarding the coming and going of employees. Claimants here, however, have failed to show that their transportation was being furnished by their employer. It may be that Mr Beasley, the drilling foreman, considered the fact that Hershel Williams owned an automobile as a factor in his decision to employ him, but he did not show that the employer paid for this transportation in any way. Furthermore no showing was made, although it was attempted, that it was customary in the oil drilling industry to furnish transportation to the employees. The one witness who testified regarding this custom remembered that oil drilling companies formerly furnished such transportation, but at that time the employees had to pay nothing for it. The witness 'understood' that later the companies had abandoned this practice. The evidence here does show that these employees had entered into a 'car...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McCollum v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1964
    ...The governing rule of law was applied in Cerrato v. McGeorge Contracting Co., 206 Ark. 1045, 178 S.W.2d 247, and O'Meara v. Beasley, 215 Ark. 665, 221 S.W.2d 882. In both those cases the injury occurred while fellow employees were riding together, but the Commission found that the transport......
  • Frank Lyon Co. v. Oats
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1955
    ...'Injuries', § 81-1302(d), Ark.Stats.2 For some Arkansas cases involving application of the 'going and coming rule', see O'Meara v. Beasley, 215 Ark. 665, 221 S.W.2d 882; Stroud v. Gurdon Lbr. Co., 206 Ark. 490, 177 S.W.2d 181; Cerrato v. McGeorge Contracting Co., 206 Ark. 1045, 178 S.W.2d 2......
  • Wayne Holden & Co. v. Waggoner
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 2016
    ...the course and scope of the employment. See generallyMcCollum v. Rogers, 238 Ark. 499, 382 S.W.2d 892 (1964) ; O'Meara v. Beasley, 215 Ark. 665, 221 S.W.2d 882 (1949) ; Cerrato v. McGeorge Contracting Co., 206 Ark. 1045, 178 S.W.2d 247 (1944). On the other hand, the Arkansas Supreme Court h......
  • Thornton v. Texarkana Cotton Oil Corp.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1951
    ...same rule was also announced by this court in Penny et al. v. Hudson Dairy et al., 218 Ark. 594, 237 S.W.2d 893 and in O'Meara v. Beasley, 215 Ark. 665, 221 S.W.2d 882. To like effect, appellant also agrees with the statement of the law announced by the Commission in these words: 'we think ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT