IVY H. SMITH COMPANY AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALFRED A. WINGO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the court reversed an award to an employee injured in an assault at his job site, holding that the injury did not arise out of employment because the assault originated from a purely private car pool dispute unrelated to the employment relationship.
The court held that the injury did not arise out of employment because the assault originated from a purely private and personal car pool arrangement that was not part of the employment relationship, and the employment contributed nothing to the assault.
[1] An injury arising from an assault is not compensable under workers' compensation if the origin of the assault was purely private and personal, and the employment contribu…
[2] A car pool arrangement between co-employees, not mandated or compensated by the employer, is considered a private and personal agreement.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when it is clear that the origin of the assault was purely private and personal, and that the employment contributed nothing to the episode, whether by engendering or exacerbating the quarrel or facilitating the assault, the assault should be held noncompensable”
The legal standard for determining whether an assault and its injuries arise out of employment, establishing that purely private disputes unrelated to employment do not qualify for workers' compensation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1980, Wingo was employed by Ivy H. Smith Company and worked on a construction site in Brevard County while living in Ocala. He drove himself …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arising Out Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1119] THOMPSON, Judge.
The appellants challenge a workers’ compensation Order, contending that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of his employment. We agree and reverse.
In March 1980, the claimant was employed by the appellant Ivy H. Smith Company (“the Company”). The claimant, along with two other employees, lived in Ocala but worked on a construction site in Brevard County. He would drive himself and his two coemployees to the job site, leaving Ocala on Monday morning and returning there on Friday night. The company did not provide any compensation for the costs of this travel.
The claimant had an agreement with one of his co-employees whereby that co-employee was to pay the claimant $15.00 a week for transportation between Ocala and the job site. When returning to Ocala one Friday night, the claimant told the co-employee that he would not transport him to the job site on Monday morning because the co-employee had not paid him $15.00. On Monday morning, the claimant did not pick up this co-employee when he traveled to the job site. Later that morning, the co-employee appeared at the job site and assaulted the claimant with a weapon, causing an injury to his shoulder. The Deputy Commissioner found that this injury was compensable.
In San Marco Co., Inc. v. Langford, 391 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), this court discussed the appropriate test for determining if an assault and its accompanying injuries arise out of employment. We stated that:
[w]hen it is clear that the origin of the assault was purely private and personal, and that the employment contributed nothing to the episode, whether by engendering or exacerbating the quarrel or facilitating the assault, the assault should be held noncompensable. . . .
Id. at 327, quoting 1A Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, § 11.21 (1978). In this case, the apparent origin of the assault was.a purely private and personal agreement relating to a car pool arrangement. That arrangement was not a part of employment, as is clear from George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), where this court affirmed the denial of compensation to an employee who was injured while transporting two co-employees to work in a car pool arrangement that was very similar to the one at bar. In the present case, the claimant’s employment contributed nothing to the assault —instead, the basis for that assault was a car pool arrangement that was not a part of employment. Therefore, the claimant did not sustain an injury arising out of employment, and his claim for compensation should have been denied.
The Deputy Commissioner’s Order is reversed, and this cause is remanded for discharge. In view of our holding, we need not address the other issue raised by the appellants.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and JOA-NOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 469 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…er they had quarreled the previous night); see also Lainhart & Potter v. Holland, IRC Order 2-3005 (1975) (origin of assault not the employment where, in love triangle, claimant was shot at work by former co-employee); Ivy H. Smith Company v. Wingo, 404 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The facts in those cases are patently distinguishable from those in the case at bar. There can be little doubt that the attack on Mrs. Brown arose out of her employment. Appellants also argue that because of the nature of the a…
-
Spleen v. Rogers Grp., Inc., 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…did not provoke the assault and that he was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits was supported by competent substantial evidence. This court again reversed the deputy commissioner’s finding of compensability in Ivy H. Smith Company v. Wingo, 404 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In that case, the claimant and two co-employees were in a car pool and got into a dispute over the money owed for transportation. The claimant did not pick up the co-employee who had not paid him, and later that morning the co-e…
-
Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…not otherwise have been made.” Id. at 885. But claims of injury caused by a tortfeasor’s acts will not be found compensable under chapter 440 when an employee fails to meet their burden to establish an occupational cause. Ivy H. Smith Co. v. Wingo, 404 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), involved an assault with a weapon. There, this Court held that the employee’s shoulder injury sustained from an assault with a weapon wielded by a co-worker was not compensable. The dispute arose between the employee and…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- SAN Marco Co., Inc. v. Barney Louis Langford, 391 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Whaley v. State, 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Handy George, Jr. v. Woodville Lumber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)