Smith v. A.I.U. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-862,83-862 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 868 |
| Parties | David John SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.I.U. INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. 457 So.2d 868 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Ford and Nugent, William M. Ford, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gold, Little, Simon, Weems & Bruser, John F. Simon, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.
Before DOMENGEAUX, CUTRER and DOUCET, JJ.
This is a suit for workmen's compensation benefits which involves a determination of whether the plaintiff-appellant, David Allen Smith, was within the course and scope of his employment when he sustained his disabling injuries. The plaintiff-appellant perfected this appeal of the trial court's judgment which denied recovery from the defendant-appellee, Wendy's of Louisiana, Inc. and its compensation insurer, A.I.U. Insurance Co.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a kitchen helper at a Wendy's restaurant in Alexandria, La. On the night of January 18, 1982, the plaintiff volunteered to drive his manager home after they closed the restaurant for the evening. Before driving directly to the manager's home a slight detour was necessary in order to make the nightly deposit of the cash receipts of the day. The plaintiff then brought his manager home and on the return trip to his own home the plaintiff was involved in a vehicular collision that caused his disabling injuries. Mr. Smith was totally disabled from January 18, 1982 through April 15, 1982. No weekly compensation benefits nor any medical expenses have been paid to the plaintiff by his employer. The plaintiff filed this suit seeking to recover total disability benefits and the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the disabling injuries.
After a trial, a judgment was rendered in the defendant's favor on the ground that the plaintiff's drive home was not within the course and scope of his employment by the defendant thereby making the plaintiff's disabling injuries non-compensable. The plaintiff appeals this determination and it constitutes the sole issue of this appeal.
LSA-R.S. 23:1031 provides that workmen's compensation shall be allowed for an accidental injury "arising out of and in the course of" the plaintiff's employment. Laughlin v. City of Crowley, 411 So.2d 708 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982). Mr. Smith's car accident must arise out of and be in the course of his employment in order for him to be entitled to recovery in this suit. The general rule is that injuries sustained while in transit to or from the work place do not arise out of the claimant's employment nor are they in the course thereof. Castille v. Sibille, 342 So.2d 279 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977); Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al, 387 So.2d 1340 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). Therefore, the plaintiff's recovery is precluded unless his car accident falls within one of the exceptions to this rule.
Castille outlines three exceptions to the general rule that injuries sustained in transit to or from the jobsite are non-compensable. First, if the employer provides transportation then an injury sustained in an automobile going to or coming from work is compensable. Second, benefits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
96-100 La.App. 3 Cir. 8/21/96, Kennedy v. Martin Gas Transp. Co., Inc.
...writ denied, 503 So.2d 491 (La.1987); Guidry v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 461 So.2d 625 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), Smith v. A.I.U. Insurance Company, 457 So.2d 868 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 387 So.2d 1340 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), writ denied, 393 So.2d 746 (......
-
McLin v. Industrial Specialty Contractors
...Justice v. Sylvester, 499 So.2d 590, 592-93 (La. App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 503 So.2d 491 (La.1987); Smith v. A.I.U. Insurance Company, 457 So.2d 868, 869 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984). 2. As support for the existence of a special mission exception in Louisiana, McLin relies primarily on Johnson......
-
South Dakota Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Winger
...or to discharge any duty but was in fact free to pursue his pleasure when he was involved in the accident." Smith v. A.I.U. Ins. Co., 457 So.2d 868, 870 (La.Ct.App.1984). ¶18 Further, the dual purpose doctrine cannot be used to create coverage when somewhere, sometime during a personal jaun......
-
Mackmer v. Estate of Angelle
...; Justice v. Sylvester, 499 So.2d 590, 592–93 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 503 So.2d 491 (La.1987) ; Smith v. A.I.U. Insurance Company, 457 So.2d 868, 869 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984). ...