Case Name: N. & L. AUTO PARTS COMPANY and Great American Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. Raymond E. DOMAN and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1959-01-29
Citations: 111 So. 2d 270
Docket Number: No. A-283
Parties: N. & L. AUTO PARTS COMPANY and Great American Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. Raymond E. DOMAN and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
Judges: CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 111
Pages: 270–274

Head Matter:
N. & L. AUTO PARTS COMPANY and Great American Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. Raymond E. DOMAN and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
No. A-283.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.
Jan. 29, 1959.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1959.
Samuel Kassewitz, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
Martin Sack, Jacksonville, Burnis T. Coleman and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for respondents.

Opinion:
WIGGINTON, Judge.
An employer and its compensation insurance carrier have petitioned this court to review by certiorari a compensation order entered by the Florida Industrial Commission. The order in question affirmed a compensation order entered by the deputy commissioner which directed that the carrier pay compensation to the claimant for temporary total disability and pay medical bills as the progress of claimant's recovery required. The issue involved is whether the claimant was in the course of his employment at the time of his injury. This question must be resolved only upon a construction of the law relating to deviation.
The facts in the case are in conflict only in one minor respect. Claimant was employed by N. & L. Auto Parts Company of Jacksonville as a route salesman. His duties required him to travel into various communities of Georgia and South Carolina for the purpose of calling on customers of the company. On the day of his injury, accompanied by a fellow employee, claimant called on their last customer late in the afternoon. They ate their evening meal and drove to the outskirts of Savannah, Georgia, where they registered for the night at a motor court. After refreshing themselves and having no further duties to perform until the following morning, claimant and his companion called a taxi and drove into Savannah for the purpose of seeing a picture show. After the show, they ate a late snack and returned to the motor court. The only conflict in the evidence is whether claimant and his fellow employee had two bottles of beer at the time they ate their evening meal before registering at the motor court or after they left the picture show and before returning to the motor court for the night. This conflict is immaterial in view of the absence of any evidence to indicate that either claimant or his companion were intoxicated to any degree. After debarking from the taxicab at the office of the motel, claimant and his companion walked along the horseshoe shaped driveway in direction of the room which they would occupy for the night. Upon arriving at a point in the driveway directly in front of the door to their room, claimant left the driveway and started walking across the lawn. After three or four steps in the direction of the door to his room, claimant's ankle turned and he fell, breaking his leg. It is for the disability and medical expenses in connection with this injury that the award for compensation was made.
It is petitioners' position that since claimant's injury was suffered while on a personal mission exclusively for his private and personal enjoyment and not in any way connected with his employment, it cannot be held as a matter of law that the accident occurred and the injury was received while claimant was in the course of his employment. In' support of this position petitioners rely upon the Foxworth case, decided by the Supreme Court of Florida. The Foxworth case is not authority for the position taken by petitioners here. Recovery in the Foxworth case was denied upon the finding by the deputy commissioner that the injuries suffered by claimant were not the result of an accident or that, if in fact an accident had happened, claimant's injuries could not have resulted therefrom. The court cited as an additional reason why the deputy's order denying compensation should be affirmed was that on the facts in that case the deputy found that claimant was not in the course of his employment at the time he suffered the injuries for which he sought compensation.
The general rule is that an employee whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises is within the course of his employment at all times during the trip other than when there is a distinct departure for a non-essential personal errand. Injuries incurred during such travel and while attending to the normal creature comforts and reasonably comprehended necessities, as distinguished from those incurred in the course of amusement ventures are usually held to be com-pensable. Compensation in such areas is predicated on the premise that these acts do not take the employee out of the scope of employment because they are necessary to his health and comfort; that although such acts are personal to the employee, nevertheless they are expected incidents of his away-from-home employment and indirectly if not directly benefit the employer; that such acts, therefore, are not in fact deviations from the course of employment.
It is undisputed that claimant was on an out of town business trip on behalf of his employer at the time of his injury. It must be conceded that it was necessary for him to secure lodging for the night. Had claimant not left the motor court after registering, but while walking over the lawn before retiring, fallen and broken his leg, such injury would be compensable under the Act, F.S.A. § 440.01 et seq. This assumes, of course, that claimant would not be guilty of such misconduct as would exclude him from its benefits.
The established rule in Florida is that when one is engaged in a purely private mission he is not within the scope of his employment until he returns to the employer's place of business or point of departure. ' In the case now under consideration, claimant deviated from the course of his employment when he elected to drive into Savannah to see a picture show. Had he been injured while on this private mission, either in going into Savannah, or returning to the motor court, such injury would not have been compensable. Claimant's deviation, however, had been completed and came to an end when he debarked from the taxi on his return to the motor court. It was while walking across the lawn, a place where he had a right to be, subsequent to the deviation, and while properly in the course of his employment that the accident occurred which resulted in claimant's injury.
Our research fails to disclose any decision from this jurisdiction passing directly upon the question presented here, and the decisions from other jurisdictions in analogous cases are in hopeless conflict. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial legislation and should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of its enactment. It would be hypercritical to hold that merely because claimant had deviated from the course of his employment on a completed private mission prior to the time of his injury he is barred from relief, whereas if he had not so deviated he would be entitled to' the benefits of the Act. It would be equally unsound to conclude under the facts in this case that claimant's point of deviation occurred inside his motel room when he decided to drive to Savannah to see the picture show, and that he could not be considered to have returned to the course of his employment until he was again safely inside the door of his room. Such holdings would not be in keeping with either the spirit or intent of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons the deputy's finding that claimant was injured while acting in the course of his employment is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. The Full Commission was correct in holding as it did that claimant's private mission had been completed upon his return to the motor court, and that the order of the deputy should be affirmed. Certiorari is accordingly denied.
CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concurs.
STURGIS, C. J., dissenting.
. Foxworth v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla.1955, 86 So.2d 147.
. Duval Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Johnson, 154 Ela. 9, 16 So.2d 290; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Richardson, 148 Fla. 323, 4 So.2d 378; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495.
. E.g.: DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. Pittman, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 600; Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pinkerman, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 547; McCall v. Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc., 155 Fla. 854, 22 So.2d 153.