EARL L. MARONEY, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD A. KELLY & SONS, INC., AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
An employee injured while driving back to retrieve a forgotten invoice after a personal detour to a coworker's apartment was denied workers' compensation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employee had deviated from his employment duties for personal reasons and had not yet resumed his normal work course when the accident occurred.
An employee who deviates from employment to engage in a personal errand is not entitled to workers' compensation for damages sustained in an accident occurring before he returns to the course of employment. The claimant's deviation to the coworker's apartment and his status off the normal work course at the time of injury precluded compensation.
“an employee who deviates from his employment to engage in a personal errand is not entitled to compensation for damages sustained in an accident occurring before he returns to the course he was pursuing in the interest of his employer”
States the controlling legal rule that bars workers' compensation when an employee deviates for personal reasons before resuming employment duties
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl L. Maroney, employed by Edward A. Kelly & Sons, Inc., completed a delivery of produce to Yorkshire Restaurant. After the delivery, he and a cowor…
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 Deviation From Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
The claimant, Earl L. Maroney, worked for the respondents, Edward A. Kelly and Sons, Inc., wholesale produce dealers, and while in that employ was entrusted with the employer’s truck for use in transporting him between his home and his job.
On the day of the injury, with which we are now concerned, he was instructed to deliver a load of produce to the Yorkshire Restaurant situated in a southerly direction from the place of employer’s business. He took with -him a fellow employee, one John Mims. After the mission was performed the claimant and his companion Mims travelled to the latter’s apartment where they engaged in drinking beer for about two hours. The direction to the house of Mims was not towards the employer’s plant and not towards claimant’s home, which would have been his normal course as it was then near the end of the work day. During the visit with Mims, the claimant recalled that he had neglected to get from the restaurant the employer’s copy of the invoice of the goods delivered so he started to retrace his steps for the purpose of recovering it, and took Mims along entertaining the thought, so he testified, of returning Mims to his apartment then returning to his home.
About three, blocks before the claimant reached the restaurant where he was to retrieve the invoice, he was involved in an accident and suffered injury. The deputy held that the claimant had deviated from his employment and had not completed his personal trip or resumed the course he would pursue as an employee so he denied the claim. The Full Commission placed its imprimatur on the decision.
We think Florida is aligned with a majority of the courts in the application of the .rule that an employee who deviates from his employment to engage in a personal errand is not entitled to compensation for damages sustained in an accident occurring before he returns to the course he was pursuing in the interest of his employer. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. The Full Commission affirmed the deputy on authority of United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fla., 55 So.2d 741, as well they might because the facts *210do not seem to have been seriously in dispute.
Obviously, to us, the claimant was far from his normal course in his social visit with Mims and as obviously he was still off the track when he met misfortune.
We reiterate the ruling in Moore pronounced 26 years ago and, therefore, do not hesitate to approve the action of the deputy and the Full Commission in rejecting the claim.
THORNAL, C. J., DREW and CALDWELL, JJ., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…’s injuries. Appellant submits that the Dinkins case is consistent with the Florida rule that going for meals, food or drinks is a deviation from employment. Nealy v. Ross, 249 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971); Maroney v. Edward A. Kelly & Sons, Inc., 195 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1967); Morgan v. Collier County Motors, Inc., 193 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); and Ball v. I.C. Helmly Furniture Company, 132 Fla. 882, 182 So. 435 (Fla.1938). The rule is well settled in Florida that whether an employee’s tortious acts are w…
-
Sunshine JR. Food Stores, Inc. v. Thompson, 409 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ompensation for damages sustained in an accident occurring before he returns to the course he was pursuing in the interest of the employer. N. & L. Auto Parts Co. v. Doman, 111 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Maroney v. Edward A. Kelly & Sons, Inc., 195 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1967); Concrete & Metal Form Erectors, Inc. v. Volkers, IRC Order 2-2706 (1973). In N. & L. Auto Parts Co., claimant was a route salesman who, on the date of the injury, was registered for the night at a motor court, intending to call on custo…
-
Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co. OF Miami, Inc., 297 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1974)…n the course of such deviation. This' deviation would not have concluded until claimant had again returned at least as far south as Northwest 54th Street. As the law is stated in the case of Maroney v. Edward A. Kelly & [*555] Sons, Inc., (Fla.1967) 195 So. 2d 208, it would not affect the compensability of the claim at hand whether claimant had, in fact, reached his home and departed therefrom or was still enroute to his home at the time of the accident. The evidence on this point is such as to make the preci…
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
- US Cas. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1951)
- The Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. & Lee Motors of Fort Myers, Inc. v. Mrs. Charles S. Moore, Jr., 143 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1940)