Southland Corp. v. Gray, 0974-93-4

Decision Date17 May 1994
Docket NumberNo. 0974-93-4,0974-93-4
Citation444 S.E.2d 19,18 Va.App. 366
PartiesThe SOUTHLAND CORPORATION and American Protection Insurance Company v. Leta K. GRAY. Record
CourtVirginia Court of Appeals

Steven M. Gombos, Alexandria (Robert J. Lowe, Jr., Lowe & Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellants.

Richard E. Cassell, Alexandria, for appellee.

Present: BAKER, BARROW and FITZPATRICK, JJ.

JOSEPH E. BAKER, Judge.

The Southland Corporation and American Protection Insurance Company, jointly referred to herein as employer, appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) that awarded Leta K. Gray (claimant) temporary total disability benefits pursuant to the commission's finding that claimant's disability arose out of and in the course of her employment. The commission also found that claimant did not violate employer's safety rules and ordered employer to pay the cost of claimant's medical expenses caused by her disability. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appellate review, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to claimant, as the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va.App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990).

Employer owned and operated eight 7-Eleven convenience stores that were under the supervision of Ike Carroll. As of December 5, 1991, claimant had managed one of these stores for one-and-a-half years. Employer established a written policy that all store receipts must be taken to the bank and deposited "before 3:00 p.m. and never later than 5:00 p.m.," unless approved by the supervisor. One of the reasons for this policy was for the deposits to be made before dark and "for the security of our [7-Eleven] people." If permission for a deposit after 3:00 p.m. was requested and granted, the supervisor would instruct the person who called to be "extra careful."

On Thursday, December 5, 1991, claimant had experienced an unusually busy day. She was short of experienced help; vendors were making more merchandise deliveries than on a normal day; the State Health Department made its regular inspection; sales were up; and Ike Carroll, claimant's supervisor, visited the store to hold business discussions with claimant. Prior to 3:00 p.m., claimant did not have time to complete her assigned duty of preparing the deposit and did not proceed to the bank until approximately 5:45 p.m. At that time, intending to make the bank deposit, claimant placed that day's receipts in a bank bag; concealed the bank bag inside a customer-type, brown bag; placed the bags against her chest behind a Life magazine and, with her purse on her shoulder, walked out of the customer entrance toward her car that was in the store's parking lot. When claimant left the store to make the bank deposit, she was not wearing any clothing that identified her as a 7-Eleven employee. As claimant was about to enter her car, a man approached her, grabbed her arm, turned her toward him, knocked her purse away, seized the brown paper bag and its contents, and ran away. Claimant had offered her purse to the robber but he declined the offer, saying "[t]hat's not what I want." Although claimant also had her car keys in her hand, the robber made no attempt to steal the car.

Following the robbery and at her supervisor's suggestion, claimant remained away from her job over the weekend. On Monday, she called the appropriate person at her employment, explained her apprehension and was told to seek medical help. Thereafter, claimant was advised by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • O'Donoghue v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2019
    ...notified of lightning nearby, as evidence that lightning was an actual risk of the claimant’s employment. See Southland Corp. v. Gray, 18 Va. App. 366, 367-68, 444 S.E.2d 19 (1994) (affirming the Commission’s award of benefits for injuries sustained during an early evening robbery, based in......
  • King v. DTH Contract Servs. Inc.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 2019
    ...while conducting his employer’s business. R & T Investments, 228 Va. at 253, 321 S.E.2d 287 ; see also Southland Corp. v. Gray, 18 Va. App. 366, 368, 444 S.E.2d 19 (1994) (noting that the "employer believed the risk [of robbery] to be so unusual that it prohibited bank deposits from being m......
  • Finney v. Mason, Record No. 2844-03-1 (VA 7/13/2004)
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 13, 2004
    ...On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the employer, the party prevailing below. Southland Corp. v. Gray, 18 Va. App. 366, 369, 444 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1994). The evidence establishes Finney was employed as a farm laborer by David F. Mason On June 3, 2002, Finney was invo......
  • Dan River, Inc. v. Giggetts, Record No. 0723-00-2.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 2001
    ...198, 203 (1988). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Giggetts, the party prevailing below. Southland Corp. v. Gray, 18 Va.App. 366, 369, 444 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1994). The commission's decision will not be overturned unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Id. I. ......
  • 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