Troutman v. Williams Furniture Corp.
| Citation | 79 S.E.2d 374,224 S.C. 353 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 16804,16804 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | TROUTMAN et al. v. WILLIAMS FURNITURE CORP. |
Nash & Wilson, Sumter, for appellant.
C. M. Edmunds and John S. Hoar, Sumter, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court reversing a finding of the South Carolina Industrial Commission that the death of claimant's decedent, Harry Troutman, an employee of the appellant, did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The hearing Commissioner (James J. Reid) had held that the said decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment, but upon appeal to the full Commission, the hearing Commissioner was reversed by the other four Commissioners. The record thereabout reads:
'An appeal was duly taken to the full Commission from the award of the single Commissioner, upon exceptions raising the question that Harry Troutman was not killed in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by Williams Furniture Corporation.
'By order dated April 22, 1952, the Industrial Commission Commissioner James J. Reid, Dissenting, reversed the hearing Commissioner and dismissed the claim of the claimant.'
As we view the testimony in this case, even if the full Commission had affirmed the findings of fact of the hearing or single Commissioner, and the Circuit Court had affirmed the award, we would, as a matter of law, be compelled to reverse. While the record is lengthy, yet the relevant, and some of the irrelevant testimony or evidence can be stated briefly.
On February 13, 1951, Harry Troutman, an employee of the appellant, was killed while walking along Penn Street, very near to its intersection with Silver Street, both of which are public streets of the City of Sumter, approximately 300 feet from the entrance to the plant of the appellant. Troutman was killed during his lunch hour, while on his own time, and while performing no duty for his employer, his death being caused by a collision between a truck and an automobile (station wagon) at said intersection, neither of which vehicles was owned nor the operation thereof controlled by the appellant; but had the facts been otherwise as to the ownership and control, the result of this case would not have been affected since recovery is here sought under Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1952, § 72-1 et seq. and negligence is not a factor to be considered. Therefore, the evidence tending to show that the truck had a load of lumber thereon for delivery to appellant's plant, and that the automobile (station wagon) was owned and being driven by another employee of appellant who was returning from lunch at the time of the collision, was wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case.
On the date of the death of Mr. Troutman, at noon, he punched out of the plant and he and his brother left for their home in the automobile owned by the deceased, for lunch, and having had such lunch, drove back to the vicinity of the plant of appellant, parking his car about 180 feet from an entrance gate to the plant, on Grant Street, a public street of the City of Sumter. Appellant's plant is situate on lots or land immediately to the east of Grant Street, and a wire fence surrounds the plant of appellant. The gate at which the deceased intended to enter the premises to continue his work was located at the end of Penn Street, on Grant Street. Having left his parked automobile, the deceased walked with his brother to the entrance of the gate of appellant's premises, where he decided that he wanted some chewing tobacco. There he left his brother and walked west on Penn Street for a block, to a store located at the southwestern corner of Penn and Silver Streets, where he entered and purchased chewing tobacco. Having purchased his tobacco, the deceased left the store and started back towards the plant of appellant for the purpose of entering and punching in, walking on the right side of said public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., PEPSI-COLA
...Corp., 211 S.C. 370, 45 S.E.2d 591; McDonald v. E. I. DuPont De Numours & Co., 223 S.C. 217, 74 S.E.2d 918; Troutman v. Williams Furniture Corp., 224 S.C. 353, 79 S.E.2d 374; and Sylvan v. Sylvan Brothers, Inc., 225 S.C. 429, 82 S.E.2d There are well-recognized exceptions to the 'going to a......
-
Sylvan v. Sylvan Bros., 16885
...of course is bound by the decision; McDonald v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 223 S.C. 217, 74 S.E.2d 918; and Troutman v. Williams Furniture Co., 224 S.C. 353, 79 S.E.2d 374. The Gallman case, supra [201 S.C. 257, 22 S.E.2d 716], is especially in point and, therefore, controlling; the inj......
-
Martin v. U.S.
...during the lunchbreak. To the same effect are Walker v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 769 (D.Alas.1971); and Troutman v. Williams Furniture Corp., 224 S.C. 353, 79 S.E.2d 374, 376 (1953). Viewed together, these cases refute any suggestion that lunchtime injuries receive uniform dispositions; t......
-
Sabb v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
... ... See ... Troutman v. Williams Furniture Corp., 224 S.C. 353, 358, 79 ... S.E.2d 374, ... ...