FRANK KENNEDY
v.
KENNETH FULGHUM AND U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an employee injured while traveling to a job site, even when using alternative transportation, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
An employee was injured while traveling to a job site in a fellow employee's car, after reporting to the employer's downtown office as was customary. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arising Out Of And In The Course Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
The deputy commissioner allowed appellant’s claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Statute, Ch. 440, F.S.A., which allowance was confirmed upon appeal by the full commission. Upon appeal from the full commission, the Circuit Judge reversed the full commission, which judgment the claimant appealed. •
It appears that appellant-claimant, Kennedy, was an employee of the appellee and was employed for work some miles distant from the employer’s downtown office; that it was the *897custom for the employees to report to the downtown office at 7:00 A. M. and load equipment for transportation to the “job,” and that the employees so reporting would be transported to the “job” in the truck of the appellee or would go in their own cars, and that claimant, Kennedy, on this occasion went in the car of a fellow employee, and enroute to the job was injured. The question is: Did his injury “arise out of and in the course of employment”? Sec. 440.09, F.S.A.
There is a question as to whether the claimant’s-appellant’s pay started when he reported to the downtown office or when he arrived at the “job,” but this seems to be only evidentiary, and not decisive of the issues. Also there is a question as to whether he rode in the car of his fellow employee at the direction of the foreman or at his own election, which is not controlling.
After the claimant had reported to the downtown office, the employer, according to the usual course of affairs, was to see to it that the employees were transported to the “job.” True, the employee did not avail himself of the transportation available, in his employer’s truck, but rode in the car of a fellow-employee instead, which was not unusual.
Under the circumstances, transportation to the job was an advancement of the interests of the employer as well as that of the employee and, with a liberal interpretation of the statute, it is our conclusion that the injury did arise “out of and within the course of employment.”
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Winter Haven Citrus Growers Ass'n, 175 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1965)…given. Petitioner, in using his car under these circumstances, was not fulfilling any duties of his employment and was not engaged in anything incidental to it. He was engaged in a purely personal mission. Petitioner relies upon Kennedy v. Fulghum, 159 Fla. 896, 32 So. 2d 919, in support of his contention that the accident was one arising out of and in the course of his employment. While the facts in Kennedy and those here are in some respects similar, in Kennedy the employees customarily reported for work…
-
B.E.T. Plant Servs., Inc. v. Dyer, 678 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…t the employer is entitled to worker’s compensation immunity.2 In view of this ruling, we need not consider the employer’s alternative arguments for reversal based on Castillo v. Huell, 675 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Kennedy v. Fulghum, 159 Fla. 896, 32 So. 2d 919 (1947). The orders under review are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellant. Reversed and remanded. . The accident in this case occurred on October 1, 1992. . Although this rulin…
-
Dirk Matthew Martinez v. A & D Elec. Contractors & Hill, 510 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…to the office and entered upon the day’s work, placing himself within the contract to receive transportation, then transported himself with the employer’s permission, injuries suffered en route may have been compensable. See also Kennedy v. Fulghum, 32 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1947). However, Martinez chose to go directly from his home to the job site for reasons it is clear were directly related to his own comfort and convenience and not through any altruistic motives toward the employer, for which trip the employe…