Travelers Ins. Co. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 09 February 1967
• Docket Number: Nos. 1,2,No. 42212,3,42212,s. 1
• Citation: 154 S.E.2d 385,115 Ga.App. 295
• Parties: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Ruby MOORE
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 385

154 S.E.2d 385

115 Ga.App. 295

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Ruby MOORE.

No. 42212.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2, 3.

Feb. 9, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1967.

Certiorari Denied April 20, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the award to the claimant by the Board of Workmen's Compensation.

Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, B. Carl Buice, Gainesville, for appellant.

Robert E. Andrews, Gainesville, for appellee.

PANNELL, Judge.

Claimant is the widow of C. D. Moore, an employee of Clipper Petroleum Co., Inc., who was killed in an automobile accident. Mr. Moore's duties consisted in part in auditing of sales of consigned merchandise made by his employer's customers, in collecting from such customers amounts due his employer, and bringing it to employer's office. When employee used his automobile in visiting customers' stations, the employer paid for gasoline.

Mr. Moore's home was in Clermont and his employer's office was in Gainesville. On the day before his death, Mr. Moore, accompanied by Mr. Hudgins, manager of Clipper Petroleum Company, Inc., was in the process of checking a shortage at a service station located on the highway between Clermont and Gainesville. He carried this money home with him for the night, a custom known and permitted by the employer, worked on his report that night, and the morning of his death started toword Gainesville. The evidence is conflicting as to whether he intended to stop by the station to collect additional money or go to the employer's office and then to the station. In any event, he was killed in an automobile accident between his home and station some fifteen minutes before 7 a.m., the time he was usually due at the office. The money he was carrying was taken from his car by other employees of his employer and conveyed to the office.

The deputy director found against liability. The full board of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation reversed this finding and found that the deceased was within the scope of his employment at the time he met his death, and awarded compensation to his widow and children. The superior court on appeal affirmed the finding of the board and the present appeal is from the order of the superior court.

The duties of the employee in this case required him to go to various places of business of customers of his employer, auditing sales there made of consigned merchandise belonging to the employer, and in collecting from such customers the amounts due the employer and bringing the sums collected to the employer's office. The bringing of the money to his employer's office was not merely incidental to the employment but necessarily a specific duty thereof. Even though, for the sake of argument, we concede that going home before bringing the money to the office of the employer might have been a deviation, yet when he left his home with the money traveling in the direction of the office of the employer this was sufficient to authorize a finding that he was taking the money to the employer's office; and he was taking it not because of a duty imposed by law, and not because it was incidental to his employment, but because it was the performance of the specific duties of his employment at a location where he usually performed such duty, that is, on the way to the employer's office. The duty of transporting the money necessarily occurred on the way to the employer's office. In our opinion, the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased and the dependents were entitled to compensation on account of his death resulting therefrom. See Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Humphries, 91 Ga.App. 271, 275, 85 S.E.2d 456, 460 holding that 'when an employee is permitted or required by his master to perform a part of the work contemplated by the contract of employment, or some act incidental thereto and beneficial to the employer, while en route to work, and is accidentally injured, the injury arises in the course of his employment.'

In this connection the insurance carrier relies upon a Kansas case (Repstine v. Hudson Oil Co., 155 Kan. 486, 126 P.2d 225) in which it appeared that an employee, who was employed to operate a filling station and who was responsible for the money taken in at the station, customarily took the money home with him and took it back to the station the next day. He was injured while driving his car to work at the station and while carrying the proceeds of the previous day's business. There was no means provided by the employer other than for the employee to take it home with him, and it was his duty to protect the money at all times. In that case, after reviewing the Kansas authorities, the Kansas court said: 'When we review the above rules in the light of the circumstances of the case we are considering we are impelled to the conclusion that there was no causative connection between the fact that the deceased in this case had the money of his employer on his person when he was killed and his injury or accident would have occurred just the same had the money not been in his possession. The accident cannot be help to have arisen 'out of' the employment. It should be observed that there are early decisions of this court which might seem to hold an accident such as we have here to be compensable. We prefer the rule, however, as it has been stated in the authorities cited here.' (Emphasis supplied) The reason given for the decision in the Kansas case would not apply in Georgia. In Georgia the accident is compensable if the employment contributes to the injury rather than causes it. See Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Mathis, 63 Ga.App. 172, 174, 10 S.E.2d 457; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Adams, 70 Ga.App. 297, 298, 28 S.E.2d 79; Davis v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 72 Ga.App. 783, 788, 35 S.E.2d 203. It appears, too, that the carrying of the money home and bringing it back in the Kansas case might have been incidental to the employment rather than a part of it, as the claimant in that case was employed to operate a filling station at a definite location; whereas, in the present case, the...