Stout v. Sterling Aluminum Products Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 27419.,27419. |
| Citation | 213 S.W.2d 244 |
| Parties | STOUT v. STERLING ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert Aronson, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Orville Francis Stout, opposed by the Sterling Aluminum Products Company, employer. From a judgment affirming a final award of the Industrial Commission in favor of the employee, the employer appeals.
Reversed and cause remanded with directions.
Jesse L. Renderer, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Alfred I. Harris, Floyd D. Stewart, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the employer, a self-insurer, from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the final award of the Industrial Commission of Missouri in favor of the employee.
On August 4, 1945, the employee attended the third annual picnic sponsored by the employer for its employees. Either in or adjacent to Chain of Rocks Park, a city municipal park, is an area called "Chain of Rocks Amusement Park," in which are various devices, among others a Ferris wheel, conducted by concessionaires, for the pleasure, recreation and amusement of the general public. This amusement park is a distance of one or two city blocks from a privately owned lot or grove called "Hoffman's Grove." The employer had rented Hoffman's Grove for the purpose of having a place to distribute refreshments free to its employees and members of their families, such as food, soft drinks and ice cream. Sometime before the day of the picnic the employer had announced over a loud speaking system and also by placard on a billboard at its plant that on Saturday, August 4th, the entire plant would be closed and all employees, and their families, were invited to the third annual picnic, and all of the employees were given a ticket. The purpose of the ticket was not to gain admission, but, as explained by witness Trost, who was chairman of the committee in charge of planning the picnic, was to enable the individual who had the ticket, and members of his family, to receive food and refreshments free; that the employer did not care about who came into the park but no one received ice cream or drinks, children or adults, except an employee who had that ticket, and members of his family. The ticket was also exhibited to obtain tickets for the children to ride on the Ferris wheel, or enjoy other devices in the amusement park. In other words, the benefits provided by the employer were available only to an employee who held one of the tickets, and to members of his family. The employees were under no obligation to attend the picnic, and whether they attended or not, they were paid no wages for that day, and no transportation was provided for them to or from the picnic by the employer. There was evidence that the purpose of the picnic was to create good will and make fellowship among the employees.
The respondent-employee attended the picnic with his family, arriving at the park at about 9 a. m., and during the day he and his family partook of the refreshments provided, and his children enjoyed free rides on the amusement devices in the amusement park, which, as above stated, was a distance of one or two city blocks from Hoffman's Grove, where the refreshments were served. About 6 p. m., immediately after taking his children for free rides on the Ferris wheel, respondent-employee and his family started for their home by leaving the amusement park and walking through Chain of Rocks Park a distance of about 50 feet to a flight of concrete steps which descended to a bus line on the public street. While going down the concrete steps respondent-employee fell and injured his knee. There was a difference of opinion in the medical testimony as to the amount of permanent injury sustained, if any; however, appellant concedes that there was sufficient competent medical testimony to sustain the award, but contends that the respondent's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
The Industrial Commission made a final award in favor of respondent for 25% permanent partial disability with an allowance of $20 per week for 40 weeks. The final award was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, and from the judgment of the circuit court the employer has appealed to this court.
There are many attempted definitions in the various cases of the meaning of the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment," but there is not, and in the very nature of things cannot be, any set formula that applies in all cases, and therefore every case involving the application of that requirement must be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances and not by reference to some formula. Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, 40 S.W.2d 601; O'Neil v. Fred Evens Motor Sales Co., Mo.App., 160 S.W.2d 775. The requirement of Section 3764, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 3764, is that all provisions of the compensation law be liberally construed with a view to the public welfare, and both the Supreme Court and this court have said that the law should be liberally construed as to the persons to be benefited, and that doubt as to the right of compensation should be resolved in favor of the employee. Pruitt v. Harker, 328 Mo. 1200, 43 S.W.2d 769, 773; Murphy v. Wells-Lamont-Smith Corporation, Mo.App., 155 S.W.2d 284. But it has also been said "that does not authorize the allowance of a claim that lacks some of the essential elements required by the act." Stone v. Blackmer & Post Pipe Co., 224 Mo.App. 319, 323, 27 S.W.2d 459, 460; Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 781. The compensation law was never designed to operate as accident insurance with blanket coverage as to any and all accidental injuries wherever and whenever received by an employee; to the contrary, it applies only to accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment. The relationship of master and servant must exist in any case to make it compensable, and when that relationship ceases to exist, whether temporarily or permanently, the liability of the employer for accidental injury to the employee ceases to exist.
The real question in this case is whether an employee, while attending a picnic, sponsored and encouraged by the employer, and to which all employees are invited, but not compelled to attend, and on a day when the employer's business is suspended and its plant closed, slips and falls and sustains an injury in a public park where the picnic is being held, can such employee look to the employer for compensation on the theory that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment? The courts of our state have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogue v. Wurdack
...Shoe Co., Mo.App., 257 S.W.2d 211, 214(6); Stamps v. Century Electric Co., Mo.App., 225 S.W.2d 493, 498; Stout v. Sterling Aluminum Products Co., Mo.App., 213 S.W.2d 244, 246(3); Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 781, 787(5).21 Smith v. Grace, 237 Mo.App. 91, 159 S.W.2d......
-
Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.
...the employer in such a fashion that attendance at it by the employee is in the nature of a 'special errand.' Stout v. Sterling Aluminum Products Co., 213 S.W.2d 244 (Mo.Ct.App.1948); F. Becker Asphaltum Roofing Co. v. Industrial Commission, 333 Ill. 340, 164 N.E. 668 (Sup.Ct.1929); Miller v......
-
Heaton v. Ferrell
...Carriker v. Lindsey, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 43, 45(4); Rankin v. Girvin, Mo.App., 231 S.W.2d 242, 249, 251; Stout v. Sterling Aluminum Products Co., Mo.App., 213 S.W.2d 244, 246(1). See also the Culberson, Lunn, Dehoney, Foster, Morgan, Goetz, and May cases cited in footnote 1, supra.3 Toole v......
-
Kohlmayer v. Keller
...in the absence of such proof. E. g., Stakonis v. United Advertising Corp. (1930), 110 Conn. 384, 148 A. 334; Stout v. Sterling Aluminum Products Co. (Mo.App.1948), 213 S.W.2d 244; Graves v. Central Elec. Power Co-op. (Mo.1957), 306 S.W.2d 500; Wagner v. Buescher Band Instrument Co. (1954), ......