Ry. Express Agency Inc v. Shuttleworth

• Decision Date: 07 February 1940
• Docket Number: No. 27869.,27869.
• Citation: 7 S.E.2d 195
• Parties: RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc. v. SHUTTLEWORTH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

7 S.E.2d 195

RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc.

v.SHUTTLEWORTH.

No. 27869.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Feb. 7, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An injury arises out of the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon a consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work, and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation, as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises out of the employment.

(a) The danger to which the employee is exposed may originate either from the employment or outside of it, if the exposure is peculiar to it.

(b) Applying the above principles, an employee whose work requires that he travel and spend nights away from home and at hotels or lodging places is protected by the provisions of the workmen's compensation law from exposure to the perils of the highway and the hazards of hotels which occur in the normal, usual, and accustomed manner, and which are incident to such exposure. An injury so incurred may be said to have a causal connection with the employment, and therefore to have arisen out of the employment.

2. The trial court did not err in affirming the award of the Industrial Board.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. M. T. Shuttleworth, claimant, against the Railway Express Agency, Incorporated, employer. To review a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the Industrial Board in favor of the claimant, employer brings error.

Affirmed.

Alston, Foster, Moise & Sibley and James L. Alston, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Donald R. Atkinson, of Nashville, Tenn., for defendant in error.

GUERRY, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court of Fulton County affirming an award of the Industrial Board in favor of the widow of Shuttleworth. The facts are these: Shuttleworth was an employee of Railway Express Agency, Inc., as a special agent. His duties were those generally of an investigator. His headquarters were at Nashville, Tennessee, where he had his home. His contract of employment was made and entered into in Atlanta, Georgia. As such special agent his territory embraced parts of Georgia, including Atlanta, and the state of Tennessee. His duties were to travel over this territory and while travelling he was expected to ride in the express car and the trucks of his employer and to investigate loss and damage to shipments handled bythe defendant company and to confer with the attorneys of the defendant company. In making his investigation and performing his duties he was allowed to use his own discretion much of the time. He had been advised to come to Atlanta from Nashville to consult with the company's attorneys here, and in pursuance of that instruction from his employer he left Nashville at 10:45 a. m., May 15, 1938, and arrived in Atlanta at 5 p. m. of the same day. His engagement with the attorneys of the defendant were during business hours of May 16th. He left Nashville when he did in order to get a "good night's sleep in Atlanta at some hotel in that city." There was another train which left Nashville at 10 p. m. which would have arrived in Atlanta in time for him to have met his engagement and the company would have been obligated to have paid his Pullman fare from Nashville to Atlanta. The nature and character of his employment made it necessary frequently that he be away from home overnight and stay in hotels in various cities in his territory. There were no certain hours assigned to him within which he was to do his work and it was often necessary for him to keep going at various and different hours. He had frequently spent the night in hotels in Atlanta and the employer paid or reimbursed him for the expenses of such accommodations and he was allowed to choose his own hotel as suited his own taste and no question was made provided the charge did not exceed $3 per day. When he reached Atlanta on May 15th he went to the Terminal Hotel, which is both near the station and the express warehouse of his employer, where the charge was less than $3 per day. Had he not gone to confer with the attorneys of his employer at their request, he would not have been an occupant of the Terminal Hotel at the time it was burned in the early morning hours of May 16, 1938. His presence there at this time was due to the fact that he intended to confer with the attorneys for his employer the next morning during business and he had come to Atlanta for no other purpose. He was paid a straight salary of $220.20 per month. He lost his life in the hotel fire which occurred in the early morning hours of May 16th. The Industrial Board awarded compensation and the superior court has affirmed that award. To the judgment of the superior court the defendant express company excepts.

A travelling salesman incurs the risk, by reason of his employment, necessary and incident to the requirements of such employment. This court in New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga.App. 682 (2-b), 118 S.E. 786, a somewhat similar case, said: "If the work of an employee or the performance of an incidental duty involves an exposure to the perils of the highway, the protection of the Compensation Act extends to the employee while he is passing along the highway in the performance of his duties."

In Maryland Casualty Company ' v. Peek, 36 Ga.App. 557, 559, 137 S.E. 121, 122, it is said: "There must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury, and the injury must be the rational consequence of some hazard connected with the employment. The danger which the employee is exposed to may originate either from the employment or outside of it, if the exposure is peculiar to it." In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Waymick, 42 Ga.App. 177, 155 S.E. 366, 368, the facts showed that the claimant was employed to perform certain labor on a house, and that the employer as a part of the compensation furnished board and lodging. The claimant was injured while going from the place where he worked to the place where his meals were furnished. The court, in affirming the award, quoted therefrom as follows: "The conditions under which he was working were such that he was in effect engaged in his employment during the time that he spent on the island, " the place where he worked. This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court on certiorari. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Waymick, 173 Ga. 67, 159 S.E. 564. See also Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited v. Montgomery, 45 Ga.App. 634, 165 S.E. 903.

If the work of a travelling salesman or representative of an employer expose him to the hazards of the highway we can not see why he is not exposed to the same degree and in the same manner to the hazards of hotels and eating places, provided they are the normal and necessary incidents to his employment. If an employee is required to be away from his home at night by the duties of his employment and his compensation covers the expense necessary and incident to spending the night away from home any dangers or perils arising from and incident to such staying ata hotel "the protection of the compensation act extends" to such employee while so engaged in the service of his employer. In Sprayberry v. Independence Indemnity Co., 41 Ga.App. 133 (2), 152 S.E. 125...