 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
P.A.M. TRANSP. v. MILLER6/1/1988
Appellants, P.A.M. Transportation and Intercontinental Insurance Managers, contend in this appeal from a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that the finding that appellee, William K. Miller, was within the scope and course of his employment at the time he was injured is not supported by substantial evidence. Upon reviewing the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision.
Appellee was employed by appellant P.A.M. Transportation as a long-haul driver when he was injured on March 28, 1985. On that date, he left Marshall, Illinois, at about 5:00 a.m., and arrived sometime after 5:00 p.m. in Bentonville, Arkansas, where he delivered his trailer with its cargo to Wal-Mart. He then drove the truck to Springdale, where he regularly stayed at the Springdale Motel , arriving between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. The Springdale Motel had no space for his truck, so he registered at a neighboring motel, the Scottish Inn.
In was appellant employer 's policy that upon completion of their runs, drivers should return their rigs to P.A.M. headquarters at Tontitown for servicing. According to appellee's testimony, before he registered at the motel he phoned his employer 's office to see whether someone there would be able to drive him the six-mile distance from Tontitown to Springdale. When he found no one available, appellee checked into his room at the Scottish Inn and attempted to call a friend, John ("Tony") McCormick, in hopes that he would be able to give him a ride back to Springdale from the P.A.M. terminal. Unable to contact McCormick, appellee went to a truck stop, where he ate some Vienna sausages. Then he walked to a nearby tavern, the Ozark Inn, where he had two beers and succeeded in reaching McCormick, who agreed to meet him at Tontitown and return him to Springdale.
Appellee left the tavern at closing time - 11:00 p.m. Another patron of the Ozark Inn (later determined by the police to have
been driving while intoxicated) struck appellee while he was crossing a street, walking toward his truck. The investigating officer testified that he noticed that appellee had alcohol on his breath, that his speech was slurred, and that his pupils were constricted, but added that he did not administer any sort of test for intoxication because appellee was severely injured.
Following a hearing, an administrative law judge denied appellee benefits on the basis that he was not within the scope and course of his employment at the time he was injured. The Commission reversed the decision and remanded the case to the administrative law judge for an award of benefits. In February, 1987, on appeal to this court, we dismissed the matter because the Commission's Order for Remand was not final and appealable. Subsequently, the Commission entered a final award of medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and attorney's fees. From that order, this appeal arises.
As a long-haul driver, appellee falls into the category of traveling employee . Generally, injuries sustained in going to or coming from One's place of employment are not held compensable, as all members of the general public are exposed to the hazards of the highways. However, as Professor Larson notes in his treatise:
Employees whose work entails travel away from the employer 's premises are held in the majority of jurisdictions] to be within the course of their employment continuously during the trip, except when a distinct [departure] on a personal errand is shown. Thus, injuries arising out of the necessity of sleeping in hotels or eating in restaurants away from the home are usually held compensable.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|