Oliver v. Faulkner Wood Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1988
• Parties: Nathaniel OLIVER and Theoluster Pugh v. FAULKNER WOOD COMPANY et al. Civ. 6377.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 675

531 So.2d 675

Nathaniel OLIVER and Theoluster Pugh v. FAULKNER WOOD COMPANY et al.

Civ. 6377.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 29, 1988.

James D. Forstman, Birmingham, for appellants.

Dan E. Schmaeling of Wood & Parnell, Montgomery, for appellees.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case.

The trial court found that the two employees in this case were not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.

The employees appeal. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Two issues are presented on appeal. The first one is whether Theoluster Pugh was an employee of the defendant. The second one is whether Nathaniel Oliver, who was stipulated to be an employee of the defendant, suffered an injury resulting from an accident in the course of his employment.

The trial court found that Pugh was not an employee and that Oliver was not injured from a work-related accident. It, therefore, held that neither was entitled to compensation benefits. We affirm as to the trial court's determination regarding Pugh and reverse and remand as to its determination regarding Oliver.

We note at the outset the well-settled law that our standard of review in workmen's compensation cases is a narrow one. Our inquiry is limited to questions of law and to an examination of the evidence to determine if there was any legal evidence to support the findings of the trial court; if such supportive evidence was before the trial court, an appellate court is required to affirm insofar as factual matters are concerned. Agan v. Union Foundry Co., 404 So.2d 71 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). An appellate court may not review the weight of the evidence as considered by the trial court. Grumm v. Neptune Meter Co., 472 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Thus, where there is conflicting testimony, the factual determination of the trial court in a workmen's compensation case is conclusive. Washington v. Warrior Tractor & Equipment Co., 487 So.2d 1371 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).

We would also note, however, that these presumptions that the trial court's judgment is correct do not apply where the trial court has misapplied the applicable law to the facts as determined by that court. In such a case the judgment is due to be reversed and remanded. Foy v. Foy, 447 So.2d 158 (Ala.1984).

Regarding the trial court's determination that Pugh was not an employee and thus not entitled to compensation benefits, our review of the record reveals that there is evidence to support that finding. Pugh's deposition statements to the effect that he was an employee were disputed by the deposition statements of the defendant in this case. Although the defendant had signed a written statement to the effect that Pugh was an employee, that statement was disputed by the defendant at its deposition. As indicated, such a dispute is for the trial court to settle, and its determination is presumed correct.

Moreover, our review of the record indicates that there was other sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have reached the conclusion that Pugh was not an employee, but, rather, was merely accompanying the other employees to the worksite for the short time which he was told the remaining work would take. That is, there was evidence from which the trial court could have determined that, although Pugh was at the worksite, such was not pursuant to an employment relationship with the defendant.

Where there is any legal evidence or reasonable inference therefrom in support of the trial court's determination, we are required to affirm. Sun Papers, Inc. v. Jerrell, 411 So.2d 790 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).

Thus, we find no reversible error as to the trial court's determination that Pugh was not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits since he was not an employee of the defendant.

We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the trial court's determination that Nathaniel Oliver was not injured in a work-related accident and thus not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.

The trial court made the following findings regarding the facts leading to the accident in question:

"Upon conclusion of their work day, Junior Oliver and Nathaniel Oliver, along with Theoluster Pugh and C.B. Graves, got into Junior Oliver's car to ride back to Old Blue's Stand. Theoluster Pugh was riding back to the store so he could meet up with Joe Lewis Rump and catch a ride back to Union Springs to watch a parade. Nathaniel Oliver was riding back to the store to get his week's pay and was then going to ride with Junior Oliver to the parade in Union Springs. On the way back to the store, an auto accident involving Junior Oliver's car took place for which Theoluster Pugh and Nathaniel Oliver claim workmen's compensation benefits."

(Emphasis supplied.)

The trial court reached the following legal conclusions from those facts:

"The recognized and well-settled law in Alabama is that an employee is not subject to the workmen's compensation law while going to his work or returning to his home after having completed his day's work. The...