HELLER BROTHERS PACKING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, A CORPORATION,
v.
MRS. FERN KENDRICKS AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
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 the deceased's injury did not arise out of and within the course of his employment.
The deceased truck driver was killed in an accident while voluntarily riding with another driver to get lunch, not on a mission for his employer. This…
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to the case of Heller Packing Company, et al., v. Lonnie Dave Lewis, et al., this day decided. The record discloses that the truck driver Kendricks lost his life in the accident in which Lewis sustained injuries. It is true that Kendricks on this day was without lunch and voluntarily rode in the truck with Roberts and the two fruit pickers from the appellant’s grove to Sunset Point and thence to Dunedin for the purpose of obtaining a lunch, and while returning to his truck at the grove was killed in an accident.
The lower court held that the deceased’s injury grew out of and within the course of his employment. It is true that compensation cases, like many others, reach this Court on appeal with a presumption of correctness of the challenged order or decree and the burden under the law is cast - upon the appellant to establish reversible error. Our study of the record leads to the conclusion that the deceased sustained injuries during the lunch period and at a time when he was not on duty for his employer nor within the course of his employment, but on a private mission not connected with his employment.
The distinction between this case and the. companion (Lewis) suit rests upon the directions shown by the record to have been given by the appellant’s foreman, Mr. Luh, to Lewis to the effect that he take the appellant’s jeep and go to Sunset Point, and obtain lunch. Such directions, as shown by the record, were not given to the deceased, the late Mr. Kendricks, *430by the foreman. The deceased voluntarily got in the truck seat by the driver, Mr. Roberts, and was so riding when killed. See Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 1 (2nd ed.) 843, par. 276.
The judgment or decree appealed from is hereby reversed.
TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Naranja Rock Co., Inc. v. Dawal Farms, Inc., 74 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954)…ntion that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, Naranja cited cases such as Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733, 200 So. 348; Heller Bros. Packing Co. v. Lewis, 155 Fla. 430, 20 So. 2d 385; Heller Bros. Packing Co. v. Kendricks, 155 Fla. 428, 20 So. 2d 387; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 147 Fla. 210, 3 So. 2d 381; Bituminous Casualty Co. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So. 2d 378; Fidelity & Casualty Company of N. Y. v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. None of these cases is applic…
-
Eastport Marine Constr. Co. v. Armisha Green, 155 Fla. 761 (Fla. 1945)…nt in this case must be and is hereby reversed upon the authority of Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495; Heller Bros. Packing Co. v. Lewis, 155 Fla. 430, 20 So. (2nd) 385; Heller Bros. Packing Co. v. Kendricks, 155 Fla. 428, 20 So. (2nd) 387. See also 71 C.J. 735, note 37 and 740, note 70 and Travelers Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 147 Fla. 210, 3 So. (2nd) 381. . Reversed and remanded., CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
-
Atkinson v. Fla. Sugar Corp., 28 Fla. Supp. 135 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1967)…usage, cases such as Lee v. Florida Pine & Cypress, 157 So. 2d 513; Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, 175 So. 2d 36; and Povia Bros. Farms v. Velez, 74 So. 2d 103, are applicable. The court has considered such cases as Heller Bros. Packing Co. v. Lewis, 20 So. 2d 387; General Development Corporation v. Kelley, 159 So. 2d 471; and Jacksonville Coach Company v. Love, 101 So. 2d 361, but finds the holding of those cases inapplicable to the factual situation revealed by these files. The court is of the opinion that…