 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Custer v. Hartford Insurance Co.8/23/2005
t to a friend's home and then returned with the friend to his co-worker's apartment at 8:30 p.m. Id . The four individuals then watched Monday Night Football until 11:20 p.m. Id . The employee dropped his friend back off at his friend's house and then proceeded toward home. Id . The accident occurred at about 11:50 p.m. on Highway 69 near the junction of Highway 50 on the employee's normal route home from Kansas City. Id . The Commission found that, while the employee had temporarily deviated from his employment, he was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he commenced to drive his company car home over his regular route home. Id . This Court found that the record supported the Commission's award. Id.
In Baldridge v. Inter-River Drainage District of Missouri, 645 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982), the injured employee was a dragline and bulldozer operator, who lived in Broseley, Missouri. On the date of the accident, he was working northwest of Broseley. Id . Sometime that day, the employee went to Sikeston and then to Qulin, Missouri, to look for parts for the dragline and purchased some parts at one of those locations. Id. Getting parts for the dragline was part of his job . Id. The employee ate at a café in Qulin and then headed for home. Id. Qulin was approximately six miles south of Broseley. Id . About 5:25 p.m., the employee was killed when his truck left the highway and overturned. Id. The Baldridge court held that "there was evidence from which the Commission could have found that [the employee] was going home and was in Broseley nearing the end of a trip created by the duties of his employment" and that he therefore fell within the exception to the going and coming rule "for employees whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises." Id. The Baldridge court stated:
When he was searching for parts or buying other items for use by his employer, [the employee] was operating the same as any traveling employee, and would be in the course and scope of his employment until the trip ended. Here it would not end until he reached home. Even if [the employee]'s eating at the café was a deviation from his employment, . . . at the time of the accident [the employee] was following a direct route home and thus would have again been in the course of his employment.
Id . at 140-41.
In Brown v. Weber Implement & Auto Company, 206 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Mo. 1947), the injured employee was a salesman employed by Weber killed in an automobile accident in his company car while heading home at 1:30 a.m. On the night of the accident, the employee, his wife, and another couple went to the Chain Yacht Club, where the employee was a member and frequently socialized, after the employee received a call from a representative of the yacht club who was interested in buying some spark plugs and oil for the club and who requested that the employee come to the club. Id . at 353. After taking an order for spark plugs and oil, the employee, his wife, and the other couple remained at the yacht club drinking and dancing until 1:30 a.m. Id. The Brown court held that the Commission could reasonably have concluded from the evidence that "the work of the employee created the necessity for the travel and that the trip would have been made though the private errand had been cancelled." Id . at 354 (internal quotation omitted). The court stated that, while the evidence could also have supported an award for the employer, the award issued by the Commission was supported by competent and substantial evidence. Id. at 355.
There is no discernible reason to differentiate the case at bar from the three aforementioned cases. Custer was an employee who regularly traveled
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|