WELL-BILT PRODUCTS, INC., AND SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
THOMAS E. HAWKINS AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date November 16, 1965.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.
It is further ordered that a fee of $250. be awarded to the attorney for the respondent.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nikko Gold Coast Cruises v. Gulliford, 448 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1984)…be business. All that need be determined is that an injury occurred as the result of a trip, a concurrent cause of which was a business purpose. See, e.g., Krause v. West Lumber Co., 227 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1969); Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1966). We hold that in the instant case Gulliford’s task of bringing the cash to work for the ticket sellers’ use was a sufficient concurring cause of his trip to invoke liability as a work related injury. We therefore approve the decision of…
-
Krause v. W. Lumber Co., 227 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1969)…oore, 143 Fla. 103, 105, 196 So. 495 (1940). . N. & L. Auto Parts v. Doman, 111 So. 2d 270 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1959). . Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495, 496 (1940). . Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1966).…
-
Tessan Swartz v. McDONALD'S Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001)…liable for workmen’s compensation.” Cook, 82 So. 2d at 682. After Cook, we reiterated its basic principle, i.e., that a court need only find a current business and personal purpose for the journey, in Krause and Levine v. Builders Alum. Stone Co., 186 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1966). Thereafter, in Nikko we outlined the parameters of a sufficient concurrent cause for dual purpose trips and distinguished United States Fidelity & [*946] Guaranty Co. v. Rowe, 126 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1961), which involved an employee who was…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence