PHILIP COHEN
v.
I. SLOAN AND MAMIE SLOAN, AS PARENTS OF WILLIE MAE SLOAN, DECEASED
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 Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing in a workmen's compensation case where an employee was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from a business trip. The court affirmed the Industrial Commission's award to the employee's parents, finding the employee was still within the scope of her employment despite choosing a different ride home.
Yes, the employee was acting within the scope of her employment. Her preference for a different ride home did not alter her status as being in the line of her employer's business when she was fatally injured en route to her home town.
“She preferred to return to her home town after midnight when her work was accomplished, in a car with a lady and her husband, at least one of whom was an employee with decedent, rather than to return in the car with her employer.”
Describes the employee's choice of transportation home after completing her work.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee was killed in an automobile accident while traveling back to her home town after completing a business trip for her employer. She chose to…
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition for Rehearing
In this case the employee was killed in an automobile accident while returning to her home town from another town to which she had been taken by her employer on his merchantile business to take store stock for her employer. She preferred to return to her home town after midnight when her work was accomplished, in a car with a lady and her husband, at least one of whom was an employee with decedent, rather than to return in the car with her employer. He did not object. Such preference by a young lady should not change her status as being in the line of her employer’s business when she was fatally injured en route to her home town.
*753The Industrial Commission granted relief to the parents of the decedent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the Circuit Judge affirmed the award. This Court found no reversible error, and affirmed the order of the Circuit Judge. There was no material error.
Rehearing denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Terrell and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Richardson, 4 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1941)…8 So. 802; Dixie Laundry v. Wentzell, 145 Fla. 569,200 So. 860; Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348; City of St. Petersburg v. Mosedale, 146 Fla. 784, *Page 329 1 So.2d 878; City of Lakeland v. Burton, 147 Fla. 412,2 So.2d 731; Cohen v. Sloan, 138 Fla. 752, 190 So. 14; Fidelity Casualty Co. v., Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495; Southern States Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 146 Fla. 29, 200 So. 375; Sims Tire Service v. Parker, 146 Fla. 23, 200 So. 524. I agree to the conclusion of the opinion as prepared by Mr…
-
Webb v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 148 Fla. 714 (Fla. 1941)…employee of the Insurers, while engaged in the business of the insured. This must be answered in the affirmative, if her employer was the insured under the terms of the policy, on authority of' the opinion and judgment in the case of Cohen v. Sloan, 138 Fla. 752, 190 Sou. 14, and cases there cited. See also Southern States Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 146 Fla. 29, 200 Sou. 375. We then come to the question as to whether or not the plaintiff is excluded under sub-paragraph (f), supra, of the Exclusion Claus…
-
S. States Mfg. Co. v. Grover D. Wright, 146 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1941)…4, 170 S. E. 384; Healy v. Hudson Coal Co., 130 Pa. Super. Ct. 462, 198 Atl. 684; A. & E. Lbr. Co. v. Atkinson, 184 Okla. 530; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Curry, 187 Ga. 342, 200 S. E. 150. While our opinion in the case of Cohen v. Sloan, 138 Fla. 752, 190 Sou. 14, is not directly in point, our holding the employer liable in that case was based .upon the theory that the employee was fatally injured while engaged in an act incident to the furtherance of the employer’s business. In that case it was…
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