Woodring v. United Sash & Door Co.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | 34854. |
| Citation | 103 P.2d 837,152 Kan. 413 |
| Parties | WOODRING v. UNITED SASH & DOOR CO. et al. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The reviewing court has little concern with disputed questions of fact in ordinary lawsuits, and none whatever in workmen's compensation cases except to ascertain whether the record contains any evidence which on any theory of credence or want of credence would justify the trial court's finding or conclusion of fact.
Evidence that traveling salesman was sent to neighboring town on errand for employer and took three guests along for company on the journey, but at destination found that the person he was to see was not in town, and thereafter set about his own pleasure, drank intoxicants, and was injured when automobile overturned while he was driving recklessly on return journey authorized denial of compensation on ground that accident did not "arise out of and in course of employment."
Where a business errand is the purpose of workman's journey, the social incident of taking a few guests along for the pleasure of their company would not affect right to compensation for injuries suffered in performance of errand; but, where the business errand is finished or abandoned and the workman thereafter sets about the pursuit of his own pleasure or indulgence, the employer is not liable for compensation.
1. In proceedings for compensation for injuries sustained by a traveling salesman when his automobile turned over on a public highway, the trial court's finding of fact that the claimant's accident and injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment was sustained by evidence.
2. Where a traveling salesman was sent to a neighboring town on an errand for his employer and he took three guests along for company on the journey, but at destination he did not accomplish his errand and thereafter set about his own pleasure and indulged in drinking intoxicant liquors and while driving recklessly on his return journey his automobile bursted a tire and overturned, and he was injured, held, a finding of the trial court against his claim for compensation on the ground that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment cannot be disturbed.
Appeal from District Court, Saline County; Roy A. Smith, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Fred E. Woodring claimant, opposed by the United Sash & Door Company employer, and the Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, insurance carrier. From a judgment setting aside an award of compensation, the claimant appeals.
Alex H. Miller, of Salina, for appellant.
C. W. Burch, B. I. Litowich, LaRue Royce, L. E. Clevenger, E. S. Hampton, and R. E. Haggart, all of Salina, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment setting aside an award of compensation for injuries sustained by the appellant, Fred E. Woodring, when his automobile turned over one night on a public road a few miles east of Salina.
The pertinent facts, stated in their least controversial aspects, were to this effect: For two years or more prior to January 25, 1938, appellant was a traveling salesman for the United Sash and Door Company of Wichita. His home was in Salina and he operated therefrom in a limited territory roundabout. His compensation was paid in commissions based on the proceeds of his sales, together with an allowance of $100 per month for traveling and hotel expenses. Appellant was privileged to select his own means of transportation and had a large measure of discretion in prosecuting his employer's business.
On January 25, 1938, about 4:00 p. m., while appellant was at Tescott, about 20 miles northwest of Salina, he received a telephone call from his employer directing him to go to Enterprise, about 30 miles east of Salina, to see a man named Sumner who was reconstructing an old mill. The purpose of this errand was to procure the measurements and related details for the special jambs and window frames appellant's employer expected to supply. Appellant left Tescott about 4:30 p. m., and went to Minneapolis, (which was considerably out of his way), and from there to Salina where he merely stopped long enough to pick up a friend, Raymond Heck, and then Heck's sister, Mrs. Clarence McCown, and her husband. They traveled in appellant's automobile eastward, arriving in Enterprise about 8 o'clock p. m. Appellant was informed that Sumner was in Abilene, 5 or 6 miles away. He made no further effort to meet Sumner, nor did he pay any further attention to the business for which he had come to Enterprise.
Appellant had two friends in Enterprise, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Winn, who sold beer and other drinks and ran a dancing floor called the Nighthawk Inn. Appellant took his automobile guests to that place.
At this point in our narrative, a conflict of testimony begins as to the amount and character of the refreshments imbibed by appellant and their effect on him. He says he drank one bottle of beer and no more. Clarence McCown testified that appellant drank one highball with him. Mrs. McCown testified that a highball is a mixture of whiskey and pop. The party tarried at the Nighthawk Inn for an hour or so. Appellant did not stay with his guests the entire time. When he reappeared preparatory to returning to Salina, Mrs. McCown testified that appellant acted as if he were intoxicated. Mr. McCown testified that he would not say "whether he was intoxicated or mad." McCown further testified that when they left the Nighthawk Inn, Raymond Heck drove the appellant's car.
McCown's testimony, in part, reads:
***
Mrs. McCown testified:
Raymond Heck, the third guest in appellant's automobile, testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumner v. Meier's Ready Mix, Inc.
...at 284, 899 P.2d 1058. An errand which represents an abandonment of any business purpose is demonstrated in Woodring v. United Sash & Door Co., 152 Kan. 413, 103 P.2d 837 (1940). There, this court addressed a situation where a traveling salesman's personal errand resulted in an accident and......
-
Silvers v. Wakefield, 39266
...885, 267 P.2d 469; Shue v. LaGesse, 173 Kan. 309, 245 P.2d 966; Addington v. Hall, 160 Kan. 268, 160 P.2d 649; Woodring v. United Sash & Door Co., 152 Kan. 413, 417, 103 P.2d 837; Johnson v. Arma Elevator Co., 146 Kan. 965, 967, 73 P.2d 1018; Bull v. S. Patti Const. Co., 152 Kan. 618, 628, ......
-
Scott v. Hughes, No. 94,265.
...Kan. 687, 693, 89 P.3d 546 (2004); Poole v. Earp Meat Co., 242 Kan. 638, 644-48, 750 P.2d 1000 (1988); Woodring v. United Sash & Door Co., 152 Kan. 413, 417-18, 103 P.2d 837 (1940); Evans v. Frakes Trucking, 31 Kan.App.2d 211, 213-16, 64 P.3d 440 From this review of the basic provisions of ......
-
Jones v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... the appellee. See Woodring v. United Sash & Door ... Co., 152 Kan. 413, 103 P.2d 837; Woodfill v ... ...