Stockman v. J.C. Industries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: 854 S.W.2d 24
• Parties: Elmer STOCKMAN, deceased, Appellant, v. J.C. INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. 46889.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 24

854 S.W.2d 24

Elmer STOCKMAN, deceased, Appellant, v. J.C. INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent.

No. WD 46889.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District.

May 18, 1993.

Cornelius Thomas Ducey, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Ernie Brasier, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

LOWENSTEIN, Chief Judge.

Claimant, the spouse of the deceased employee, Elmer Stockman, appeals the denial of workers' compensation benefits by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). Stockman died when he lost control of his car on his way home from work. The parties dispute whether Stockman died while in the scope and course of employment under exceptions to the general rule injuries that occur while going to or from work do not fall within the Workers' Compensation Act. The administrative law judge awarded benefits to the claimant under the mutual benefit dual purpose exceptions. The Commission reversed and denied compensation.

Elmer Stockman had worked as a carpenter for J.C. Industries for three years. The company had a job in the Lake of the Ozark area which involved two different work sites in a state park. Stockman worked at one job site roofing a shelter. He lived in Jefferson City and traveled back and forth to the work site near the Lake with other J.C. Industries employees. The employees arranged a car pool and took turns driving to the work site. J.C. Industries did not reimburse the employees for gas. On occasion, when Stockman had his car at the job site he would use his vehicle to obtain supplies or take precast concrete cylinders to a laboratory for testing in Jefferson City.

On his way home from work in October 1989, with other employees in the car, Stockman lost control of his car about five miles from the work site but within the state park. On the day of the accident, Stockman had not used his vehicle to obtain supplies or to transport concrete cylinders. He did have a company saw in his trunk which a witness for the claimant on cross examination said was put there by accident. On redirect, the witness said he told Stockman to go ahead and put the saw in his car. The witness testified the supply trailer was "down a ways." At the time, the witness was the most senior person on work site.

The administrative law judge in concluding the death arose out of and in the course of employment held, "the fact that on the day of the injury and death the employee's vehicle had not been used to obtain supplies or materials or deliver concrete cylinders to the laboratory should not defeat the ... claim for benefits." The judge found the vehicle was available if needed for use in the employer's business and for the employer's benefit if the company truck was not available. The Commission reversed. The appellant asserts the Commission erred because Stockman died within the scope and course of his employment. Also, the appellant asserts the accident took place on the work site.

This court reviews findings of fact in workers' compensation cases in the light most favorable to the decision of the Commission, deferring to the Commission when it resolves issues concerning the credibility and weight given to conflicting evidence. Cole v. Town and Country Exteriors, 837 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.App.1992). This court affirms when the decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record. Id. at 583. This court must disregard any evidence which might support a finding different from that of the Commission and that is true although a finding to the contrary would have been supported by the evidence. Hutchinson v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 721 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Mo.App.1986). This court reviews only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award only upon one or more of the following grounds:

(1) that the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers;

(2) that the award was procured by fraud;

(3) that the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or

(4) that there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.

Cole, 837 S.W.2d at 583; § 287.495.1, RSMo Cum.Supp.1992.

The burden is on the claimant to prove the injury to the employee arose out of and in the course of employment. McClain v. Welsh Co., 748 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Mo.App.1988). "Arising out of" means that a causal connection exists between the employee's duties and the injury. Shinn v. General Binding Corp., 789 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Mo.App.1990). "In the course of employment" refers to the time, place and circumstances of the injury. Id. at 232. Injuries arise out of employment if they are a natural and reasonable incident of the employment. Injuries are in the course of employment if the accident occurs within the period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be fulfilling the duties of employment. Id. at 232.

Generally, an employee may not recover workers' compensation for injuries sustained during travel to and from work. Brenneisen v. Leach's Standard Serv. Station, 806 S.W.2d 443, 448 (Mo.App.1991). The appellant relies on the mutual benefits doctrine and the dual purpose doctrine as exceptions to the general rule. Although courts often use the terminology interchangeably, the doctrines are distinguishable. Id. at 447. Under the dual purpose doctrine, if the work of the employee creates the necessity of travel, the employee is in the course of his employment and is entitled to compensation even though the employee is at the same time serving some purpose of his own. McClain, 748 S.W.2d at 726. For the doctrine to apply, the trier of fact must be able to infer the employee would have made the...