Court Opinion

ID: 9587933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:07.742606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:01.479632
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
concurring specially. I concur in the opinion and judgment but desire to add that in my opinion the majority view is based solely on a disagreement about what the law is in cases where there is a slight deviation. The rulings in Farr and Skinner, supra, are not authority for the dissent. In Farr the employee was not on the premises of the employer when injured. He was sent to the building where he was injured and under the theory of the case was not in the course of his employment during his lunch hour. In Skinner the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that there was no deviation at all. It was a case of not being in the course of employment from the time the salesman-employee left Savannah to go to Tybee until he returned to Savannah. In this case the employer lost his ring while performing his job. If he had looked for it immediately and had been hurt while doing so I do not believe most reasonable minds would hold that the search was so far removed from employment as to bar compensation. His search on a return from his mission does not change the principle on which the affirmance of the awarding of compensation is based.