Case Title: Knox v. Batson

Citation: 399 S.W.2d 765

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1966-01-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
399 S.W.2d 765 (1966) Patricia H. KNOX, as Administratrix of Estate of Joe S. Knox, Appellant, v. Carl J. BATSON, dba Batson Construction Company, Appellee. Mrs. Annie AMMONS, Appellant, v. Carl J. BATSON, dba Batson Construction Company, Appellee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. January 5, 1966. *767 Hooker, Keeble, Dodson & Harris, Nashville, for appellant Patricia H. Knox, etc. Gullett, Steele & Sanford, Nashville, for appellant Mrs. Annie Ammons. Dodson, Batson, William J. Harbison, Nashville, for appellee. CRESON, Justice. These are actions to recover death benefits under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. The cases originated in the Circuit Court of Davidson County. Both in the Trial Court and in this Court, they have been most ably presented, briefed and argued. Handling of the case by the Trial Judge was no less than excellent. The original petitions in these actions allege that the appellants here are the widows of deceased employees of the appellee; that recovery was sought for the benefit of such widows and minor children; that on January 8, 1964, and for some considerable time prior thereto, the decedents had been employees of the appellee, Carl J. Batson, dba Batson Construction Company; that some time prior to January 8, 1964, the appellee ordered the decedents to report to work at or near Tullahoma, Tennessee; that the site of the work was a residential construction project at or near Tullahoma, Tennessee; that the decedents' employment was that of dry-wall finishers; that the deceased employees were directed to stay at a motel in Coffee County, Tennessee, known as The Blue Top Motel; that as a part of their compensation the appellee would pay their lodging costs. The petitions further alleged that, acting under these instructions, the deceased employees went to the area of Tullahoma, Tennessee and there resided in lodgings provided for them by the appellee; and that, on the night of January 7, 1964, or the early morning of January 8, while the deceased employees were occupying the motel room, they were there asphyxiated by leakage of gas from a heater installation in said room. The necessary allegations as to average weekly wage and prayers for relief follow. The petitions were met by answer on behalf of appellee, which admitted the status and the dependency of the beneficiaries of the action; admitted that at the time of their death the deceased employees were in the general employ of the defendant, and admitted that all parties were subject to the provisions of the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. Defendant further admitted that for some weeks prior to January 8, 1964, the deceased employees were engaged in construction work for the defendant, near Tullahoma, Tennessee. The appellee categorically denied that deceased employes, or any other employees, were ordered or directed to stay in any particular place, and denied that any duty or aspect of the employment required any employee to have his lodging in any particular place. Appellee admitted that he paid his employees an additional living allowance, in separate checks, while working out of town. The answer alleged that each employee was authorized to travel back and forth to his home in Nashville, Tennessee, to reside on the premises of the construction work, if he so desired, or to stay in whatever public or private accommodations were available in the area of the construction work. Appellee did inquire as to what lodging facilities might be available and furnished the information he gained to the employees of all crafts. Upon these issues the proof was taken. The case was twice argued before the Trial Judge and he was provided able briefs. After taking the case under advisement, in order to have sufficient time to fully consider same, the Trial Judge concluded that decedent's beneficiaries were not entitled to recover compensation benefits. Motions for new trial were seasonably filed, argued, *768 and overruled. Appeal was then perfected to this Court. The Trial Judge prepared and filed a comprehensive finding of facts, which is as follows: Though no question is raised in the briefs in this Court on the point, it is pertinent at the threshold to note the statement of principle by this Court in Ward v. North American Rayon Corp. (1963), 211 Tenn. 535, 366 S.W.2d 134: See also, White v. Whiteway Pharmacy, Inc. (1962), 210 Tenn. 449, 360 S.W.2d 12. Upon the facts as found by him, the learned Trial Judge rendered a full Memorandum *770 Opinion, including the review of pertinent case and text authority. As stated, he concluded that the petitioners below were not entitled to Workmen's Compensation benefits. Final judgment was entered on April 29, 1965, dismissing the petitions. This Court is presented with a single question. That question is whether or not the deaths of Joe S. Knox and Robert Norman Ammons arose out of and in the course of their employment. For the appellants to prevail, both of these conditions must be present. The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of" are not synonymous; but, rather, embody distinct concepts which are primarily basic to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law. This has been repeatedly stated by this Court. It is only necessary to point out from McAdams v. Canale (1956), 200 Tenn. 655, 294 S.W.2d 696, the following: Further, the Tennessee law is clear that if an employee suffers an accident in the course of employment, it does not necessarily follow that the injury arose out of his employment. See Sandlin v. Gentry (1957), 201 Tenn. 509, 300 S.W.2d 897. Before testing the facts of the instant case against the background of precedent, it is helpful to eliminate certain arguments which may be said to have at least a superficial application to the solution of the case at bar. For example, it is of no avail to the appellants here to say the accident would not have happened if the servant had not been engaged in the work at the time or had not been in that place. It must appear that death has occurred from something he was doing in the course of his work or from some peculiar danger to which the work exposed him. Further, the mere presence of the employee at the place of injury because of employment will not alone result in the injury being considered as arising out of the employment. Injury or death of an employee, to be compensable, must arise out of a risk peculiar to the employment. Injury or death of an employee from an exposure which is no more or different than that of any other member of the public similarly situated in place and time is not compensable. These views have been heretofore sustained by this Court in Scott v. Shinn (1937), 171 Tenn. 478, 105 S.W.2d 103; Thornton v. RCA Service Co. (1949), 188 Tenn. 644, 221 S.W.2d 954; Jackson v. Clark & Fay, Inc. (1954), 197 Tenn. 135, 270 S.W.2d 389. Appellants here rely heavily upon two prior decisions of this Court as determinatively supporting their contention that the deaths of these two employees are compensable. In Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Warren (1938), 172 Tenn. 403, 112 S.W.2d 837, the insurance company had appealed from an award of compensation to the wife of a deceased employee. The employee was killed in an accident which occurred in Lafayette, Tennessee. At the time of the accident, the deceased was employed by Snyder Brothers as a special agent and adjuster in the fire insurance business. The decedent's territory was the State of Tennessee. His duties required him to appoint agents, adjust accounts, make collections, inspect buildings, and adjust losses. His headquarters were in Nashville, Tennessee, but he traveled continuously from place to place, over the State, following a pre-arranged itinerary and reporting to his employer, daily. The deceased employee had gone to his hotel room in Lafayette, Tennessee, and was awaiting the arrival of a Mr. Johnson, who was to assist him in his work. He had gone out onto a porch on which his *771 room opened and had been reading a magazine. Upon arising to re-enter his room to pursue his work, he stumbled and fell over the porch bannister, receiving injuries from which he eventually died. It was the insistence, on appeal, of the employer, that there was no evidence to support the Trial Court's finding that the deceased's accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The primary issue was whether the accident arose out of the deceased's employment. The crux of the decision appears in two expressions of this Court. The first is a quote from Patten Hotel Co. v. Milner, 145 Tenn. 632, 238 S.W. 75, 76, as follows: In applying the test quoted from that case, this Court then reasons as follows: In the case of Carter v. Hodges (1939), 175 Tenn. 96, 132 S.W.2d 211, the widow of a deceased employee brought suit against the decedent's employer to recover Workmen's Compensation for the accidental death of her husband. The husband had met his death in a hotel fire in Atlanta, Georgia. The deceased employee had been engaged as a traveling salesman for the employer for about three years. It appears that at the time of his death the deceased employee had completed his sales route for the current period and was in the process of returning to his home, by direct route, when he paused to spend the night in the Atlanta hotel. Atlanta was on his direct route and a regular stopping point in covering his territory. The Trial Court awarded compensation in this case. Employer's appeal was based upon the theory that (1) the deceased was an independent contractor, and (2) the injury did not occur as a result of accident arising out of and in the course of the deceased's employment. The rationale of this decision appears from the following: The last mentioned authorities represent the "traveling men" cases in Tennessee. The same is true of Martin v. Free Service Tire Co. (1949), 189 Tenn. 327, 225 S.W.2d 249. On critical examination of these cases, several basic reasons for the conclusions there reached become apparent. In the first place, the employees travel and incidental lodgings in the course of travel are prime incidents of the consensual agreements of employment. The taking of lodging in hotels, in both cases, was clearly contemplated as an essential ingredient of the performance of the employment by the employee. Such was in no sense merely coincidental, in relation to the employment. Much case and text authority supports the conclusion that such cases are compensable upon the very considerations we have just alluded to. We are well aware of the rule that Courts will liberally construe applicable provisions of Workmen's Compensation Acts to the end that doubt as to whether the injuries arose out of or in the course of employment be resolved in favor of the employee. See Tapp v. Tapp (1951), 192 Tenn. 1, 236 S.W.2d 977. However, it was not even necessary to rely on this rule of construction to reach the result obtained in Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Warren and Carter v. Hodges, supra. As before stated, travel and lodging in the course of travel were essential incidents of the employment under test in those cases. In determining whether the case at bar falls within the ambit of compensability under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law we must take note of certain pertinent concepts which have been heretofore enunciated by this Court. This determination logically begins with consideration of such pronouncements as that from Sandlin v. Gentry (1957), 201 Tenn. 509, 300 S.W.2d 897, as follows: In Thornton v. RCA Service Co. (1949), 188 Tenn. 644, 221 S.W.2d 954, the facts involved an assault upon the employee by a stranger, who was said to be either insane, drunk, or otherwise irresponsible. This occurred while the employee was eating lunch in a restaurant, in the course of a trip from Norris to Knoxville, Tennessee, where he was to do certain work. In the course of its opinion, this Court noted that "[t]he mere presence at the place of injury because of employment will not result in the injury *773 being considered as arising out of the employment." Further, after reviewing many Tennessee cases, this Court concluded as follows: The opinion concluded with this statement: As stated, while there is no similarity in fact between this case and the instant one, the basic principles enunciated above are apposite. After examining many authorities, we are impressed most by the reasoning of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals (5th Circuit), in Rodriguez v. Great American Indemnity Co. (1957), 244 F.2d 484. The facts in this case are quite similar to those in the case at bar. Rodriguez was a carpenter who was paid by the hour for his work. Although he lived in San Antonio, Texas, he was lodging at a hotel in Del Rio, Texas, some 160 miles away. He stayed at Del Rio about four and one-half days each week and was allowed $5.00 per day for expenses while away from his home. He had stayed at various hotels in Del Rio. It was shown that it was impractical for him to commute because of the distance involved. A fire destroyed the hotel where Rodriguez stayed and he was fatally injured. The facts were that when his work day was over, Rodriguez could go anywhere he wanted to go and do anything he wanted to do until sixteen hours later, when he was supposed to report back for work on the job. His duties, for his employer, were related to a fixed construction job site. The reasoning in this case seems highly pertinent to the situation we now have. It is, in part, as follows: It is further said: We find ourselves, in the case at bar, in the same situation as indicated by the Federal Court, as follows: It is true that the last mentioned authority involves the compensation law of Texas and is a Federal Court decision. It cannot be "controlling", as counsel have insisted; but the Court's reasoning seems to us to be logical and sound. In the instant case, and in that case, we find a fixed site construction job as the area of work, an hourly employee free of all duty at the close of the allotted period of work, and an employee who finds lodging in the area of the job site of his own choosing and volition. In conclusion, we note the opinion of Chief Justice Burnett in the case of Armstrong v. Liles Construction Co., Inc. (1965), 215 Tenn. 678, 389 S.W.2d 261. The deceased was killed in an automobile accident while on his way to work. He was employed as an assistant supervisor and, in this capacity, was required to move about the job area. In doing this, he often used his own car and was given a gas allowance for so doing. It was his custom to pick up various pieces of small equipment needed on the job on his way home from the job site. On the day of his death, he had several small items in his car which he had purchased the night before and was taking to work with him. The surviving wife contended that on the strength of these facts, the trip to the job on the morning in question was within the course of and arose out of the deceased's employment. The Trial Court rejected this contention. This was the basis of the sole question on appeal. This Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court, relying much upon the New York case of Marks' Dependents v. Gray (1929), 251 N.Y. 90, 167 N.E. 181. The essence of the holding of that case seems to be that the employee is not covered by Workmen's Compensation when the accident occurs "while the employee is on business which is primarily his own, that is, a trip that he, personally, would make independent of the need for assistance to his employer." Notably, it is said: Thus it is that we cannot accept the argument that the unfortunate deaths of Knox and Ammons, in the instant cases, *775 arose out of their employment by Batson Construction Company merely by reason of the fact that they elected, on their own volition, to engage lodging nearer the fixed construction job site than their homes. Unlike the "traveling men" cases, the lodging here was not a direct incident to the employment. It was, at most, only coincidental; relating exclusively to the comfort and convenience of these employees, it being not so far removed from the fixed site of their daily work. In light of the foregoing, we are constrained to, and do, affirm the judgment of the Trial Court; with costs assessed against the appellants, in equal parts. BURNETT, C. J., and WHITE, DYER and CHATTIN, JJ., concur. Since the filing of our original opinion in these companion cases, the appellants have filed a Petition to Rehear, Brief in support thereof, and Supplemental Brief and Argument. Almost in their entirety, these documents do not meet the requirements of the rules of this Court. We are constrained to state, again, as has been said many times in variant language, that the office of a petition to rehear is to call the attention of the Court to matters overlooked, not those things which counsel supposes were improperly decided, after full consideration. Further, this Court has said, and says again, that a petition for rehearing should never be used for the purpose of rearguing the case on points already considered and determined, unless some new and decisive authority has been discovered which was overlooked by this Court. Rule 32 of this Court governs the subject of rehearing and says, "A rehearing will be refused where no new argument is made, and no new authority adduced, and no material fact is pointed out as overlooked." As stated, with one exception, the petition to rehear and briefs are squarely afoul of this interdiction. One additional authority, Taylor v. Meeks (1951), 191 Tenn. 695, 236 S.W.2d 969, is now adduced; and heavy reliance placed thereon by appellants. It is said in the briefs, with much emphasis, that our original opinion in the case at bar departs from the law as enunciated in Taylor v. Meeks, supra. With this statement, we are not in agreement. While Taylor v. Meeks is another of the transportation cases, we believe that, in truth, the opinion in that case is in conformity with our original opinion in this case. In that case, the defendant Meeks operated a saw-mill about ten miles from his home and regularly carried his employees back and forth in his truck. On the day of Taylor's injury, the employees were riding home from the mill. The defendant was driving the truck. As they proceeded along the highway, the plaintiff was struck in the eye by an overhanging limb. The principal issue made in the case was that the accident did not arise out of and in the scope of the plaintiff's employment. The following from Taylor v. Meeks, supra, seems to make it abundantly clear that there is no conflict of principle between that case and the case at bar: Thus it is that the very fact was present in that case, the lack of which in the instant case, cause it to fail of compensability. With this additional comment, we are content to fully adhere to our original Opinion; the Petition to Rehear is denied. BURNETT, C. J., and WHITE, DYER and CHATTIN, JJ., concur.