FLAVOR PICT CO-OP AND SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,

v.

VICTOR RODRIGEZ AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Mrs. John W. Allen v. The Est. of Charles Francis Carman, 281 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1973)
  …For cases formulating the contractual exception to the “going and coming” rule see Southern States Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 146 Fla. 29, 200 So. 375 (1941); Lee v. Florida Pine & Cypress, 157 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1963), and Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1965). Other exceptions to the rule, including the special hazard exception,5 and the principle that employees whose occupation involves travel as part of the employment are covered while traveling,6 are clearly inapplicable in the instant situ…
• Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 228 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1969)
  …. M. A. Gammino Const. Co., 127 Conn. 528, 18 A. 2d 400 (1941) ; Saba v. Pioneer Contracting Co., 103 Conn. 559, 131 A. 394 (1925). . Shepperson v. Mosher Bros., Inc., 253 App.Div. 852, 1 N.Y.S.2d 446 (1938). See Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1965) ; Povia Brothers Farms v. Velez, 74 So. 2d 103 (Fla.1954). See, generally, Southern States Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 146 Fla. 29, 200 So. 375 (1941); Jett v. Turner, 215 Ala. 352, 110 So. 702 (1926) ; and Owens v. Southeast Arkansas Transp. Co.…
• Poinciana Vill. Constr. Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Gallarano, 424 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …claimant was paid for using his personal vehicle in the manner aforementioned. We fail to see this as an agreement by the employer to furnish transportation, a recognized exception to the “going and coming rule.” Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1965). Such a finding stretches the evidence beyond its probative value and is contrary to the claimant’s own testimony that the employer did not pay him for driving his automobile to work. The deputy’s reliance upon employer-supplied transport…

  ← 1 / 2 →