 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughan's Landscaping & Maintenance v. Dodson6/29/1999
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
Vaughan's Landscaping & Maintenance and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as "employer") appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") awarding benefits to Timothy Jason Dodson ("claimant"). Employer contends the commission erred in finding that claimant proved he sustained an injury by accident while in the course of his employment. Specifically, employer argues that at the time of claimant's accident (1) his transportation was neither "employer-provided" nor incidental to his employment; and (2) his severe intoxication removed him from the course of his employment. Because we find that claimant's severe intoxication had removed him from the course of his employment at the time of his accident, we reverse the commission's decision awarding benefits.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "A finding by the commission that an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is a mixed finding of law and fact and is properly reviewable on appeal." Dublin Garment Co. v. Jones, 2 Va. App. 165, 167, 342 S.E.2d 638, 638 (1986). Claimant worked for employer as a laborer in its landscaping business, operated by David Vaughan as a sole proprietor. Claimant, then nineteen years old, did not possess a driver's license, and Vaughan agreed to transport him to and from work. Claimant lived in Kendall, Virginia, and Vaughan's home, which served as employer's place of business, was located in Luray, Virginia. At the end of the workday, Vaughan frequently transported claimant to employer's place of business in Luray, rather than taking him directly home. Claimant frequently assisted Vaughan in unloading and servicing employer's lawn equipment, and Vaughan sometimes provided claimant with dinner, after which Vaughan would drive claimant home. Vaughan paid claimant for the entire period of time until they left employer's place of business, with the exception of approximately one-half hour for lunch and one-half hour for dinner. On Saturday, June 24, 1995, Vaughan picked up claimant at his home.
Claimant's normal Saturday work hours were either 8:00 a.m. to noon or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vaughan drove the company truck and equipment trailer to Compton, Virginia, where he and claimant performed landscaping services. Vaughan testified that after he and claimant completed the Compton job, claimant's work was done for that day. Vaughan and claimant left Compton in Vaughan's truck and traveled to Bentonville, where Vaughan stopped at a store and purchased beer and wine. Vaughan knew that claimant was under the legal drinking age. After purchasing the beer and wine, Vaughan drove toward his home in Luray. En route, Vaughan and claimant consumed some of the beer and wine and came upon some mutual friends playing horseshoes on the roadside near the Presgraves' home. They decided to stop, and Vaughan and claimant exited the truck and joined their friends. Vaughan admitted opening another beer at the Presgraves', but he did not know whether claimant continued drinking. Vaughan testified that his stop at the Presgraves' was not work-related but, while there, one of the Presgraves asked him about taking a tree down in the future. Shortly after the two men arrived, claimant argued with someone, and he and Vaughan were asked to leave. Vaughan stated that claimant was then "pretty drunk."
After leaving the Presgraves' home, Vaughan drove toward his home in Luray. Vaughan testified that he intended to either take claimant home or dro
Page 1 2 3 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|