Opinion
No. 43500.
April 26, 1965.
1. Workmen's compensation — injuries — going to and from work — general rule.
Hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from their regular place of work and off employer's premises are not incident to employment and accidents arising therefrom are not compensable.
2. Workmen's compensation — injuries — returning home from work — benefits denied.
Denial of benefits to claimant who was injured in automobile accident while returning home from his place of work, when employer did not order claimant to choose such means of transportation and did not pay mileage to and from job site, was supported by evidence.
Headnotes as approved by Gillespie, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jones County; LUNSFORD CASEY, J.
Walker, Dillard Baldwin, Laurel, for appellant.
I. The referee erred in denying compensation benefits to the claimant, and the findings and order of the referee are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and contrary to the law, and the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
II. The referee erred in sustaining objections and refusing the admission of evidence offered by the complainant, which showed the employer provided transportation for employees, and that some employees were compensated for the use of their vehicles in providing such transportation.
Collation of authorities: Guthrie v. McGuffy (La.), 43 So.2d 482; J.H. Tabb Co. v. McAlister, 243 Miss. 271, 138 So.2d 285; Kennedy v. Fulghum (Fla.), 32 So.2d 919; Konopka v. Jackson County Road Comm., 270 Mich. 174, 258 N.W. 429; M. W. Construction Co. v. Dependents of Bugg, 241 Miss. 133, 129 So.2d 631; Pace v. Laurel Auto Parts Co., 238 Miss. 421, 118 So.2d 871; Persons v. Stokes, 222 Miss. 479, 76 So.2d 517; Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Green (Texas Civ. App.), 11 S.W.2d 388; Rayner v. Lindsey, 243 Miss. 824, 138 So.2d 902; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Secs. 247, 347; 99 C.J.S., Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 235a p. 837.
Melvin, Melvin Melvin, Laurel, for appellees.
I. The claimant was not covered by Mississippi Workmen's Compensation in returning to his home after work, while riding in the car of a fellow employee. Edward Hyman Co. v. Rutter, 241 Miss. 301, 130 So.2d 574; J.H. Tabb Co. v. McAlister, 243 Miss. 271, 138 So.2d 285; Pace v. Laurel Auto Parts Co., 238 Miss. 421, 118 So.2d 871; Phillips Contracting Co. v. Dependents of Adair, 245 Miss. 365, 148 So.2d 189; Thornton v. Louisiana-Mississippi Pipeline Construction Co., 214 Miss. 314, 58 So.2d 795; Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 90, 77 So.2d 316; 58 Am. Jur., Workmen's Compensation, Secs. 217, 218 pp. 723, 725; Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 103.1.
II. The attorney-referee was correct in not permitting the introduction of the testimony of Dolan and Easterling, which testimony was as to customs and practices seven years, and four and a half years respectively, prior to the accident.
Appellants' claim for workmen's compensation benefits was denied in turn by the attorney-referee, the Commission, and the circuit court.
The evidence was to some extent conflicting, but there was substantial evidence to justify the Commission in finding the facts as next stated. Appellant-claimant was told by an official of Laurel Hot Mix, Inc., employer, to go to the employer's plant in Laurel to report for work. Claimant rode to the employer's plant with Mike Holmes, who was also being hired by employer. They used a pickup truck belonging to Holmes' father. When they arrived at the plant, they were told where the work was to start in Covington County. Holmes and claimant then drove to the job site in Covington County and worked that day, after which they drove in the Holmes truck to Ellisville where both men lived. The second day Holmes and claimant used the same transportation to drive to the job site and they worked until late in the afternoon. Holmes was driving the same truck, with claimant as a passenger, traveling from the job site to their homes in Ellisville when a tie rod came loose and he lost control of the truck, resulting in a wreck and injuries to claimant. Employer did not order claimant to ride with Holmes, nor was Holmes paid any mileage to and from the job site. It was the responsibility of Holmes and claimant to choose their own means of transportation to and from work on their own time.
(Hn 1) We find no merit in the contention of claimant that the order denying compensation is without substantial evidential basis, or that it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. This Court adhers to the general rule that the hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from their regular place of work and off the employer's premises are not incident to employment and accidents arising therefrom are not compensable. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation § 103 (1957), and cases therein cited. Claimant did not bring his case within any recognized exception to the stated rule.
(Hn 2) The evidence offered by claimant and rejected by the attorney-referee was so remote in point of time that it would not have been of value in deciding the issue. It could not have had any probative value.
Affirmed.
Lee, C.J., and Ethridge, Brady and Inzer, JJ., concur.