LYNN PRESHER, APPELLANT,
v.
J. QUICK TRUCKING, 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 a workers' compensation case, the court reversed the deputy commissioner's finding that a truck driver's injury occurred outside the scope of employment. The driver was legitimately on the employer's premises and suffered injury while assisting a co-worker with a work-related task, which the court found constituted scope of employment.
The court held that the driver's injury occurred within the scope of employment. The driver presented a prima facie case that he was furthering the cause of his employer by going to the aid of a co-worker, and it was reasonable to expect him to do so if that was the custom in the workplace.
[1] A workers' compensation claimant establishes a prima facie case that an injury occurred within the scope of employment by presenting evidence that their actions were furt…
[2] An employee's presence on the employer's premises to collect a paycheck is considered legitimate, even if the exact circumstances of the paycheck retrieval are disputed.
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“In either case, the claimant was legitimately on the employer's premises.”
Establishes that the driver had valid reason to be at the workplace, regardless of which account was true.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 12, 1982, a truck driver suffered a compensable injury. Four days later, on December 16, 1982, he went to his place of employment to retri…
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 Scope Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
This ease is before the court on appel-lee’s motion for rehearing. The motion is granted. The opinion previously filed on May 15, 1984 is withdrawn.
In this workers’ compensation case the claimant appeals the decision of the deputy commissioner finding that the injury claimant sustained occurred outside the scope of his employment and that the medical treatment received resulted from that injury and not an earlier one four days preceding the questioned injury. We reverse.
Claimant received a compensable injury on December 12, 1982. Four days later claimant was again injured, but the deputy commissioner found at the conclusion of claimant’s case that claimant’s activities at the time of injury were outside the scope of his employment.
Claimant was employed as a truck driver. On the morning of December 16, 1982 he went to his place of employment to get his paycheck. The explanations of claimant and his employer conflict concerning claimant’s presence on the work site. The employer says claimant received his check immediately and was waiting for the bank to open, while the claimant says employer forgot to bring the check to work and had to go get it. It does not matter which version is correct. In either case, the claimant was legitimately on the employer’s premises.
A co-worker who was a mechanic and whose job it was to change wheel seals on trailers was changing a wheel seal on a trailer. It was not claimant’s job to change wheel seals. Claimant observed that the co-worker was having difficulty in getting a tire off the trailer to change the wheel seal. Claimant went to his aid and while pulling on the tire injured or reinjured his back.
We disagree with the deputy commissioner that the foregoing activities preclude a finding that claimant acted within the scope of his employment. He presented a prima facie case that he was furthering the cause of his employer. It was reasonable to expect him to go to the aid of a co-worker if, as contended by claimant, that was in fact the custom in this employment. Julian v. Port Everglades Terminal Co., 135 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1961); Orendorff v. Refrigerated Transport, Inc., 216 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1968).
The decision of the deputy commissioner is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Julian v. Port Everglades Terminal Co., Inc., 135 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1961)
- Meiten v. Groveland Prods. Co., Inc., 216 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1968)