Court Opinion

ID: 9546338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:27:52.972706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:18.667787
License: Public Domain

UDALL, Justice
(dissenting).
I am in accord with the majority’s holding that the facts of the case bring the petitioners within the compulsory provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, hence, I agree the commission did have jurisdiction to enter an award. But I do not agree that the commission, without a more detailed finding, was justified in awarding Herring’s dependents “death benefits”.
*339There was one serious conflict in the evidence which the majority appears to consider of no legal significance. Employer Sherrill positively testified that while at home to lunch he talked to Herring in Queen Creek at 1:15 or 1:30 p. m., on the day in question, whereas employee Price stated it took them “quite a while” to get hold of Sherrill and that though he did not know the exact time of the phone conversation it was about 3:30 or 4:00 p. m. and that immediately thereafter they left for Glendale via Chandler. (In his sworn statement made eleven days after the accident he fixed this time at 4:00 or 4:30 p. m.) The exact time of this call is crucial as it not only challenges the veracity of the witness Price but determines the length of Herring’s and Price’s stay at the tavern in Chandler. If the employer’s version was believed it extended three hours or more, while Price limits it to a period not exceeding one hour, stating they left Chandler at approximately 5:00 p. m. for home.
If the commission as the triers of fact had found, or were to expressly find, that Price’s version was correct, I would experience no difficulty in approving the award, as I acknowledge that under the “rest and refreshment rule” which we have recognized in several cases a reasonable time out during this hot August working day for this purpose would not have deprived Herring or his dependents of the benefits of the Act. Here the deviation as to route was inconsequential.
On the other hand, I cannot agree with the conclusion of the majority that a deviation in time of more than three hours duration, during working hours, under the circumstances here related, would not require the commission to find as a matter of law that the time lapse was unreasonable and as a result thereof the decedent had abandoned his employment for the day. As stated by the majority the general rule is that an accident sustained after regaining the route from which the employee had departed is compensable. However, it is recognized and seems obvious that the route from which the employee departed must be regained within a reasonable time. The line must be drawn somewhere. Let us assume that the employees in the instant case, instead of stopping in Chandler had journeyed to Nogales, Sonora to see a bull fight and upon the return trip the next day had suffered an injury after passing the point from which they first departed from their master’s business. Quaere: Would the majority then hold that upon regaining the route from which they departed they reacquired the protection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act? If the rule, quoted from the Pennsylvania decision in the Webb case, upon which the majority relies, would justify an affirmative answer to the foregoing hypothetical question then I emphatically disagree with that case. However, as I read the Webb case it turned upon whether the petitioner was at the time of the fatal accident in the employ of the corporate entity or of its general man*340ager and hence it does not support their ■conclusion in the instant case.
It is my opinion that if Herring in arriving at Chandler at 2 or 2:30 p. m. of a weekday (Thursday) decided he was through work for the day and spent the balance of the afternoon with Price “just having a little fun” at a tavern, the deviation in time was of such duration as would constitute an abandonment of employment for the day as a matter of law, thus depriving him of the protection of the Act. The majority lay much stress upon the fact that the employee in the instant case was a foreman. The statute has made no distinction between the rights ■of a foreman and any other employee, as they are both servants. Certainly there is nothing in the record to indicate the commission thought this was a controlling factor. Further, as I read the record, Herring ■did violate his express orders. The instruction he received when he called his employer was “come on home”. The majority seem to take the position that because the employer did not add the word “immediately” Herring could spend whatever time he wanted in a tavern drinking beer and playing shuffleboard and then return home when he pleased and still be protected by the Act. I cannot agree with this far-fetched conclusion. Finally, Price expressly admits that both he and Herring considered their employment through for the day. Certainly they were performing no service for their employer, but instead, as I see it, were engaged in a strictly personal pursuit which might well have so impaired their efficiency as to render them incapable of performing any further service. The contention that the decedent was performing a service for his employer in driving the pickup truck back to the ranch is of no force whatever. He had to get back to his home whether he had or had not previously abandoned his employment.
Every case presents its own facts, hence, I realize no hard and fast rule can be laid down. See, Van De Carr v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 282 App.Div. 902, 124 N.Y.S.2d 833. In the Sindlinger case, relied upon by the majority, the time element was about one and one-half hours, in the Dooley case it was ten hours. It is to be noted that in the Sindlinger case the Court in referring to the Dooley case stated: “ * * * In passing we distinguish but do not approve or disapprove all the reason set forth therein.” I believe the rationale of the Dooley case is irrefutable. Owen v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 471, is another case in point. There, as here, a violation of instructions was involved and compensation was denied where there was a deviation of some seven hours in point of time. Our decision in the Delk case, cited in the majority opinion, turned on a “deviation in route” and not “deviation in time”, hence it has no application.
From the record it does not appear that the commission considered the lapse of time controlling as no express finding was made *341thereon. The finding that the decedent ■was killed “by accident arising out of and ■in the course of his employment” is so broad .and general that it is meaningless on this ■precise question. It is a mere categorical repetition of the statutory words governing •compensability. Cf. Moore’s Case, 330 Mass. 1, 110 N.E.2d 764. Furthermore it is a mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law and, of course, we are in nowise bound by the commission’s view of the law. Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 62 Ariz. 398, 158 P.2d 511. Without a determination of the length of time decedent remained at the tavern I cannot determine whether the award entered by the commission was lawful.
This court has previously had occasion to set aside awards of the Industrial Commission when it appeared from the record that the commission had not made a determination of a controlling fact. See, English v. Industrial Commission, 73 Ariz. 86, 237 P.2d 815; Magma Copper Co. v. Naglich, 60 Ariz. 43, 131 P.2d 357; cf. King v. Alabam’s Freight Co., 40 Ariz. 363, 369, 12 P.2d 294; Martin v. Industrial Commission, 75 Ariz. 403, 257 P.2d 596. Therefore, in order to do justice between the petitioners and respondent dependents I would set aside the award and remand it for a rehearing and an express finding on this crucial fact.
PHELPS, Justice,
I concur in this dissent.