 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hurdle and Son v. Holloway10/5/1999
mployees observed a somewhat relaxed work schedule, with time records being a rather haphazard enterprise. Nevertheless, the crucial issue before the Court cannot be decided based on whether Holloway customarily, rarely, or had never before, worked at the farm until 9:00 in the evening. There is no dispute that he was present at the farm at Sam Hurdle's urging prior to the accident. If Sam Hurdle's actions in procuring Holloway's presence at the farm were in furtherance of farm business or were authorized by some individual with authority to bind the partnership, then the time that the activities occurred becomes largely irrelevant, as does the question of whether a normal work day would have long since ended at the time of Holloway's injuries.
B.
The Finding that Holloway Performed Mechanical Work
. Hurdle and Son disputes the Commission's finding that Holloway customarily did some of the mechanic work around the farm, claiming that the evidence showed that Holloway was almost exclusively a farm laborer who only occasionally changed the oil or greased pieces of farm machinery. Again, we find this issue essentially irrelevant. Whether Sam Hurdle, in procuring Holloway's continued presence at the farm on the evening in question, was acting with the permission of a partnership agent having authority to direct employees' activities is the question, and whether Holloway had any particular skill or experience in performing mechanic's tasks has no relevance as to that inquiry. It is beyond dispute that Holloway's presence at the farm on the evening of his injuries was connected with efforts to repair a truck. If he was duly directed to be there in his capacity as an employee of Hurdle and Son, then his skill level as a mechanic does not matter.
C.
Transportation of Holloway To and From Work
. Hurdle and Son disputes the finding that the employer routinely provided Holloway's transportation to and from work twenty percent of the time. We have dealt with this issue already in Part IV of this opinion.
D. Whether Holloway's work on the truck was in the scope of his employment.
. Hurdle and Son takes issue with the Commission's finding that J. K. Hurdle had given his son, Sam Hurdle, permission to utilize other farm employees in his efforts to rehabilitate the old farm truck. However, the attack is not on this particular finding, which is, indeed, undisputed since it was attested to both by Sam and J. K. Hurdle. Hurdle and Son now simply attempt to argue that the permission is being improperly characterized since it did not include a specific statement that such assistance was to be "a part of their normal work routine."
. We have already dealt with this issue in Section III of this opinion. Absent some clearer expression by J. K. Hurdle that his permission was only for his son to ask for voluntary help outside working hours, we remain convinced that the Commission's construction of J. K. Hurdle's statement was a reasonable and logical one.
E.
The Commission's finding that the truck was a farm asset and was to be used, after repair, in farming operations.
. Hurdle and Son, in attacking this finding, points to evidence in the record that Sam Hurdle was the prime mover in efforts to rehabilitate the truck and that his father was, at best, unenthusiastic about the idea. We have treated this issue already in Section III of the opinion and merely reiterate here that we consider it largely irrelevant what future use was to be made of this truck once it was repaired. So long as Michael Holloway was employed as a common farm laborer in this family farming operation, w
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.
|
|