Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Britton
Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 15941.,15941. |
Citation | 289 F.2d 784,110 US App. DC 118 |
Parties | PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v. Theodore BRITTON, Deputy Commissioner, District of Columbia Compensation District, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John A. Beck, Washington, D. C., for appellants. Mr. J. Harry Welch, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.
Mr. Herbert P. Miller, Asst. Sol., Dept. of Labor, with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, on cross motions, granting summary judgment for appellee and dismissing the suit of our appellants, an employer and its insurance carrier, to set aside a compensation order entered against them. These are the salient facts. The employer furnished Richard A. Williams, its employee herein, with a motor truck for full-time use in servicing and repairing household appliances in the homes of employer's customers and in transporting himself between his home and the employer's place of business. The employee's regular hours were from 8:15 a. m. until 5:05 p. m., but on occasions he was required to work overtime.1 On March 10, 1959, after performing work orders in Virginia in a workmanlike manner, Williams left the home of the last customer "sometime after 6:00 p. m." According to the Deputy Commissioner's compensation order:
Appellants attack the Deputy Commissioner's findings that Williams' death (1) arose out of and in the course of employment, and (2) was not occasioned solely by intoxication.
Workmen Compensation laws are construed liberally in favor of injured employees and their dependents. Voris v. Eikel, 1953, 346 U.S. 328, 74 S. Ct. 88, 98 L.Ed. 5; Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co., 1952, 342 U.S. 197, 72 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Christian v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR, DIV. OF EMP.
...U. S.App.D.C. 177, 407 F.2d 307 (1968); United States v. Udy, 381 F.2d 455, 456 (10th Cir. 1967); Phoenix Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Britton, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 289 F.2d 784, 786 (1961). See also Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co., 342 U.S. 197, 200, 72 S.Ct. 223, 96 L.Ed. 225 I would gra......
-
District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act, Matter of
...314, 350 F.2d at 444; Hancock v. Einbinder, supra note 34, 114 U.S.App.D.C. at 70, 310 F.2d at 875; Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Britton, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 120, 289 F.2d 784, 786 (1961); Friend v. Britton, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 141, 220 F.2d 820, 821, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 836, 76 S.Ct. 72,......
-
JV Vozzolo, Inc. v. Britton, 20171.
...at 414, 52 S.Ct. 187; Hancock v. Einbinder, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 67, 70, 310 F.2d 872, 875 (1962); Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York v. Britton, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 120, 289 F.2d 784, 786 (1961). 7 Howell v. Einbinder, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 314, 350 F.2d 442, 444 (1965); Hancock v. Einbinder......
-
Wheatley v. Adler
...77 L.Ed. 676 (1933). We have repeatedly adhered to these principles. Wolff v. Britton, supra, Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York v. Britton, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 118, 120, 289 F.2d 784, 786 (1961); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 255 F.2d 544 (1958)......