Darling v. Conley Buick, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Darling v. Conley Buick, Inc.

594 So. 2d 815, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1325, 1992 WL 25785

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1992

DocketNo. 91-609

StatusPublished

This text of 594 So. 2d 815 (Darling v. Conley Buick, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darling v. Conley Buick, Inc., 594 So. 2d 815, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1325, 1992 WL 25785 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

The claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the injuries sustained in an automobile accident are not compensable under workers’ compensation, as the accident did not arise out of, and in the course of, employment. The claimant, a used car salesman, had been instructed by his employer to return certain personal documents to their owner, a customer who had left those items at the car dealership. Although the claimant was not specifically told to make the delivery on Sunday, when the dealership was usually closed and when the accident occurred, the JCC found that “the claimant could have reasonably believed that was what he should do.” Competent substantial evidence was presented to support the finding that the process of delivering the customer’s driver’s license and insurance card constituted a special errand for the employer.

[816]*816After determining that the claimant was engaged in a business purpose, however, the JCC also found that the claimant substantially deviated from the employment purpose by driving five miles beyond the customer’s residence, thereby rendering the claim non-compensable. The finding of substantial deviation is not supported by competent substantial evidence and is in error. See Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co. of Miami, Inc., 297 So.2d 553 (Fla.1974); Sanford v. A.P. Clark Motors, 45 So.2d 185 (Fla.1950); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHIVERS, Judge.

The claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the injuries sustained in an automobile accident are not compensable under workers’ compensation, as the accident did not arise out of, and in the course of, employment. The claimant, a used car salesman, had been instructed by his employer to return certain personal documents to their owner, a customer who had left those items at the car dealership. Although the claimant was not specifically told to make the delivery on Sunday, when the dealership was usually closed and when the accident occurred, the JCC found that “the claimant could have reasonably believed that was what he should do.” Competent substantial evidence was presented to support the finding that the process of delivering the customer’s driver’s license and insurance card constituted a special errand for the employer.

[816]*816After determining that the claimant was engaged in a business purpose, however, the JCC also found that the claimant substantially deviated from the employment purpose by driving five miles beyond the customer’s residence, thereby rendering the claim non-compensable. The finding of substantial deviation is not supported by competent substantial evidence and is in error. See Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co. of Miami, Inc., 297 So.2d 553 (Fla.1974); Sanford v. A.P. Clark Motors, 45 So.2d 185 (Fla.1950); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 So. 2d 815, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1325, 1992 WL 25785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darling-v-conley-buick-inc-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack