Washington County v. Evans

• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CHAMBLISS, J.
• Citation: Washington County v. Evans, 299 S.W. 780, 156 Tenn. 197 (Tenn. 1927)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1927
• Parties: WASHINGTON COUNTY v. EVANS.

299 S.W. 780

156 Tenn. 197

WASHINGTON COUNTY v. EVANS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 21, 1927

Appeal from Law Court of Washington; D. A. Vines, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Georgia Evans for compensation for the death of her husband, employee, opposed by Washington County, employer. Judgment for petitioner, and the County brings error. Affirmed.

Cox & Taylor, of Johnson City, for plaintiff in error.

Divine & Guinn, of Johnson City, for defendant in error.

CHAMBLISS J.

This appeal is from a judgment for compensation in favor of a widow, whose husband was accidentally killed while an employee of the county, which was operating in the construction of public roads under the Compensation Law (Pub Acts 1919, c. 123, as amended by Pub. Acts 1923, c. 84).

The defense is twofold: (a) That the accident did not come within the statutory phrase "arising out of and in course of employment"; and (b) that written notice was not given as required. The trial judge found in favor of the petitioner on both of these propositions, and, if there is material evidence to sustain his findings, the judgment will not be reversed.

The situation presented is somewhat unusual, and we have been pointed to no case exactly dealing therewith. The defendant is the county of Washington, and the deceased was in its employ as a mechanic, engaged in and about a rock quarry being operated by the county in connection with the construction of an adjacent highway. While the record seems to indicate that the principal duties of the deceased called for his presence on or about the rock quarry proper, there is evidence that his duties also called him from time to time out upon the highway, where equipment owned by the county was being used in road construction. The deceased, upon the blowing of the whistle at the close of the day's work proceeded toward his home along this highway, which was in course of construction. Passing out of the quarry onto this highway, he took passage in an automobile, which shortly afterwards met a truck, and, in attempting to pass the car was crowded out upon the edge of the road, which had been recently filled and was not solid, and was overturned, resulting in the death of the deceased. The proof shows that rock had been brought out from the quarry in which the deceased worked, and used in constructing that part of the road on which the accident occurred. It further appears that the deceased was traveling along the usual and most direct route between the rock quarry and his home. In fact, it does not appear that there was any other reasonably available route.

On the facts thus stated, we are not disposed to disturb the finding of the trial court that the deceased was at the time of his death within the purview of the act, although the question is close. Under the subhead, "Going to and from Work," in Corpus Juris Advance Sheets dealing with Workmen's Compensation Acts (paragraph 75), the rule is thus stated:

"As a general rule, accidents which happen to an employee on his way to and from work are not regarded as in the course of his employment, except while he is at or near the place of employment as reasonable to be regarded as in effect at the place, or where, if not on the employer's premises, he

...