 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hurdle and Son v. Holloway10/5/1999
rmit the reviewing court to re-weigh the evidence and determine where it concludes the preponderance of the evidence might lie. Natchez Equip. Co. v. Gibbs, 623 So. 2d 270, 273-74 (Miss. 1993). Rather, it has been said that, if the appellate court concludes that there is substantial credible evidence supporting the Commission's decision, then the work of the Commission must be affirmed. Id.
. Keeping in mind the limited scope of our review, we will proceed to consider the issues presented by Hurdle and Son in this appeal.
III.
Issue One: Course and Scope of Employment.
. The Commission concluded that Holloway's efforts to assist Sam Hurdle in repairing a non-working farm truck were within the course and scope of his employment. This was a finding of fact. Therefore, so long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support that finding, this Court may not interpose its own view of the matter even were it to determine that the weight of the evidence was to the contrary. Hollingsworth v. I.C. Isaacs & Co., 725 So. 2d 251 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). Hurdle and Son argues vehemently that Sam Hurdle and Michael Holloway had embarked on a purely personal pursuit of repairing an older truck owned by the farm but no longer useful in the farming operation, and there is certainly evidence in the record to support the proposition. The testimony of J. K. Hurdle makes clear that he did not consider repair of the truck to be something vital to the furtherance of the farming operation. Nevertheless, he admitted that he had authorized his son, Sam Hurdle, to obtain the assistance of the remaining farm employees to repair the truck. If the repair efforts were simply a personal pursuit of Sam Hurdle for which he enlisted the aid of a co-worker on a voluntary business, it is difficult to see why the employer 's permission was required. Even if those repair efforts were dismissed by J. K. Hurdle as nothing more than a father's indulgence of his son's personal desires, the fact that the senior Mr. Hurdle specifically authorized his son to utilize other employees in pursuit of the repairs supports the reasonable Conclusion that Michael Holloway was expected to lend assistance when requested to do so, and that such assistance was a part of his duties as an employee of Hurdle and Son. That Conclusion is not changed by the fact that the evidence is scant that Sam Hurdle himself had any general supervisory authority over Holloway. So long as Sam Hurdle was directing Holloway as to the truck repair project, he was, in effect, relaying a directive issued by J. K. Hurdle himself, who certainly could require Holloway to render such assistance as a term of his employment.
. Neither are we persuaded by the fact that the work on the truck and the ensuing accident both took place outside of Michael Holloway's normal work hours. The evidence indicates that work hours were only loosely observed in this farming operation and that the primary consideration in measuring the workday was whether the necessary tasks for the day had been accomplished. So long as Sam Hurdle had the authority (as specifically delegated to him by J.K. Hurdle) to direct Michael Holloway to remain after Dornell Holloway left work in order to assist in efforts to repair the non-functioning truck, it is largely irrelevant that this marked a deviation from a customary work day.
. In view of (a) Michael Holloway's position as the provider of common labor on a farming operation, (b) Sam Hurdle's close familial connection to J. K. Hurdle, and (c) evidence that J. K. Hurdle authorized his son to obtain the assistance of Michael Holloway in his efforts to rehabilitate the truck, we are satisfied that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|