ALLEN MURPHY, PETITIONER,
v.
PENINSULAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., 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.
A floating sales manager trainee for an insurance company sought workers' compensation benefits after suffering a leg injury while attempting to help a truck driver prevent a truck from rolling down an incline. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Relations Commission's reversal of the judge of compensation claims' award, holding that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the claimant's employment duties.
The injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the claimant's employment duties and therefore was not compensable under workers' compensation. The positional risk doctrine does not apply merely because employment brought the claimant to the location where the injury-causing incident occurred.
[1] An injury is not compensable under workers' compensation if it is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of fulfilling the duties of employment.
[2] The positional risk doctrine requires that the employment bring the claimant to the place where the injury occurred, but does not extend to injuries arising from events u…
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“Under this decision the injury resulting to the claimant must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of fulfilling the duties of the employment.”
Statement of the applicable legal standard under the positional risk doctrine from O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy, a floating sales manager trainee for an insurance company, was accompanying an agent on business rounds in his private car. Upon encountering …
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 Zone Of Special Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
McCAIN, Justice.
Claimant, a floating sales manager trainee of an insurance company, was injured when, at the request of a truck driver, he attempted to assist in preventing the truck from rolling down an incline.
The JIC awarded medical bills, attorney’s fees, temporary total disability and 10% permanent partial disability to the claimant. In his order, the JIC found that the “positional risk doctrine” was applicable in that the employment brought claimant to the place where he observed the occasion for the rescue attempts.
The IRC reversed, stating that the conditions of employment did not create a “zone of special danger” out of which the injury arose, and that to accept the JIC’s logic would in effect amount to making every street over which a workman might ride a zone of special danger. We have jurisdiction to review this matter pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
It is the petitioner’s contention that the IRC erred in rejecting the positional risk doctrine, citing O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951). Under this decision the injury resulting to the claimant must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of fulfilling the duties of the employment.
The claimant in this case was injured while accompanying an agent on his rounds in the claimant’s private car. On the way to the claimant’s home, they encountered a heavy-duty truck standing motionless, facing up an inclined portion of the road. As claimant approached, the truck driver called for help. The truck’s brakes were failing, and the driver requested the claimant to place blocks under the tires. Claimant climbed atop the truck to throw down the blocks when the truck’s brakes failed. The truck rolled back, striking a utility pole. Claimant jumped from the truck to avoid being struck by the top of the pole which was falling toward him, sustaining injury to his leg.
We have reviewed these facts in the light most favorable to the claimant and find that the injury to the claimant was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of fulfilling the duties of the employment.
The law to be applied in this case was properly determined by the IRC wherein they cited Tipper v. Great Lakes Chemical Co., 281 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1973). The request for aid by the truck driver and other relevant facts in this case upon further consideration may be deemed sufficient to create an implied contract of employment with the company whose employee was in need of assistance, thus taking the claimant out of the course of his employment with his employer. As to this issue, we make no determination.
We therefore find no error in its determination and accordingly the decision of the IRC is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rockhaulers, Inc. v. Davis, 554 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ovided the employment brought the employee to the place where he observed the situation calling for a rescue attempt. See O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483 (1951); Murphy v. Peninsular Life Insurance Co., 299 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla.1974); 1A Larson, § 28.23. In Murphy, the court found the positional risk doctrine inapplicable. The claimant in Murphy was a sales manager trainer of an insurance company, who was injured while accompanying an agent on his rounds in claima…
-
D.L. Cullifer & SON, Inc. v. Martinez, 572 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1990)…EHRLICH, Judge. We have for review Martinez v. D.L. Cullifer & Son, Inc., 556 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), because of conflict with this Court’s decision in Murphy v. Peninsular Life Insurance Co., 299 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1974). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision below. The respondents, Pablo Martinez and Mario Navarro, who were employed by the petitioner, D.L. Cullifer & Son, Inc., as fruit pickers, went to a grove one evening to retrieve a…
-
Poinsetta Gifts & Am. States Ins. Co. v. Madge Evans, 393 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…t was that this particular insect would not likely have bitten claimant had she not been at work when the insect was there, the sufficient causal nexus is apparently attributable to “positional risk” doctrine. See Murphy v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co., 299 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1974); Pickens v. Sam L. Rudd Leasing, USA, IRC 2-3741 (1977); 1 A. Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation §§ 10.10, 10.12 text at nn. 32, 33 (1978).* Granting, therefore, that the employer/carrier were responsible for required medical treatmen…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1951)
- Tipper v. Great Lakes Chem. Co., 281 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1973)