OPINION
FRASER, Chief Justice.
This is a workman’s compensation case in which a widow brought suit in her own behalf and in behalf of her children for death benefits. The case was tried to a jury and, after the plaintiff rested her case, the court granted defendant’s motion to remove the case from the jury and entered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.
Plaintiff-appellant, in her two points of error, alleges that the trial court erred in removing the case from the jury and holding as a matter of law that plaintiff-appellant take nothing.
It appears that the deceased and his family were separated and that he was alone in his trailer-house, which was not located on the premises of his employer, when a fire occurred. The widow said she was two blocks away when she saw the fire and none of the children were present, so that there was no testimony as to what deceased was doing or as to how and when the fire started or what its origin was. We believe the trial court was correct in granting the motion for instructed verdict for the following reasons.
Article 8309, section 1, T.R.C.S., dictates that the term “injury” (after defining certain excluded injuries) shall include all other injuries having to do with and originating in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer, received by the employee while engaged in or about the [360]*360furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer, whether on the employer’s premises or elsewhere. In the case before us, there was no evidence whatever except that the deceased was in his own trailer when it caught fire and he died therein. Appellant maintains that her husband had a telephone in the trailer, a removable two-way radio in the car, that he was on call 24 hours of the day and therefore died within the provisions of the compensation statutes. We do not believe this position can be maintained because there is no evidence, as stated earlier, that the deceased was doing anything but occupying his own trailer. There have been many cases pointing out the necessity that deceased or claimant, at the time of his injury or death, must have been in the scope of his employment and engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer. In the case of Wallace v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 94 S.W.2d 1201 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. ref.), wherein an individual living in the bunkhouse, and apparently while washing some clothes, was burned to death when the bunkhouse caught on fire, this court stated: “If Wallace, at the time he received the burns which caused his death, was not engaged in the work of his employer, then his widow and daughter could have no cause of action against appellee.” There have been many other cases since, including Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Preston, 399 S. W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App., ref., n. r. e.) holding that the claimant must establish that the injury was of a kind and character that had to do with and originated in the employer’s work, business, trade or profession. In Loyd v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 280 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. ref.) suit was brought to recover for injuries sustained by an embalmer who, under his employment, was subject to call at all times and who, while standing on a ladder at home, sustained an injury when the ladder slipped as he was attempting to go and answer his telephone. In sustaining summary judgment for the defendant, the court said:
“It is a cardinal rule pronounced many times in this state that to sustain a judgment for a claimant the evidence must show that his injury occurred during the course of his employment or is so intimately related to his employment as to be a part of it. In our opinion, the evidence wholly fails to show that on the occasion of appellant’s injury he was doing anything in furtherance of his employer’s business. The evidence positively shows that he was painting his house at the time of the injury and while on vacation. It is true that he was injured while getting down from the ladder to answer the telephone, but there is no evidence in the record that he ever answered it or that any one answered it for him, nor is there any evidence that the call was from his employer. The call could have been from some friend or a member of his family, or even a ‘wrong number.’ ”
We think this case is very similar to the one before us as there is no evidence whatever in our case to sustain the appellant’s position except that the deceased was in his own trailer-house which had a telephone, and he was subject to call 24 hours of the day. There is no evidence that the injury was accidental. There is nothing to connect the fire with the duties and obligations of the deceased. As to his being on call, Mr. Crowell, the safety engineer for the employer, FWA Drilling Company, stated that the company’s tool pushers (of which the deceased was one) were subject to 24-hour call, but when they were not on duty they were free to carry on their own business and could do whatever they wanted to do.
Appellant cites us to Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Monroe, 216 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App., n. r. e.) which was a tool pusher case. The court in that case stated that Monroe was a tool pusher who was on continuous duty 24 hours a day and subject to call at all times. The court further pointed out that his duties, which included keeping the well operation in sup[361]*361plies, required him to make frequent trips between Houston and Saratoga. The court pointed out that when he was found dead in the Houston canal, this was on the normal route between Saratoga and Houston and that he had not deviated from the normal route. The court in that case also pointed out that the cases bearing on this problem are not all alike, but the law contemplates that the employee’s duty be continuous. It must be recalled that, in the case before us, the official of the deceased’s employer stated that deceased was on call, but when not on duty was free to carry on his own business and could do whatever he wanted to.
We must and do hold that here the plaintiff-appellant failed to produce any proof or evidence that the deceased met his death in a manner originating in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer which was received while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer. All that could be proved, or was proved, was that the deceased was in his own home when it burned; that he was subject to call 24 hours of the day, and that no one knows how the fire started or its origin. This brings up the fact that the proof is lacking that the fire was accidental and the death resulting therefrom accordingly accidental.
For the court to have submitted this case to the jury on the amount of proof presented would have been to invite the jury to indulge in pure speculation without proof. There was no way to raise a fact issue upon which a jury could determine that Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
FRASER, Chief Justice.
This is a workman’s compensation case in which a widow brought suit in her own behalf and in behalf of her children for death benefits. The case was tried to a jury and, after the plaintiff rested her case, the court granted defendant’s motion to remove the case from the jury and entered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.
Plaintiff-appellant, in her two points of error, alleges that the trial court erred in removing the case from the jury and holding as a matter of law that plaintiff-appellant take nothing.
It appears that the deceased and his family were separated and that he was alone in his trailer-house, which was not located on the premises of his employer, when a fire occurred. The widow said she was two blocks away when she saw the fire and none of the children were present, so that there was no testimony as to what deceased was doing or as to how and when the fire started or what its origin was. We believe the trial court was correct in granting the motion for instructed verdict for the following reasons.
Article 8309, section 1, T.R.C.S., dictates that the term “injury” (after defining certain excluded injuries) shall include all other injuries having to do with and originating in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer, received by the employee while engaged in or about the [360]*360furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer, whether on the employer’s premises or elsewhere. In the case before us, there was no evidence whatever except that the deceased was in his own trailer when it caught fire and he died therein. Appellant maintains that her husband had a telephone in the trailer, a removable two-way radio in the car, that he was on call 24 hours of the day and therefore died within the provisions of the compensation statutes. We do not believe this position can be maintained because there is no evidence, as stated earlier, that the deceased was doing anything but occupying his own trailer. There have been many cases pointing out the necessity that deceased or claimant, at the time of his injury or death, must have been in the scope of his employment and engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer. In the case of Wallace v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 94 S.W.2d 1201 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. ref.), wherein an individual living in the bunkhouse, and apparently while washing some clothes, was burned to death when the bunkhouse caught on fire, this court stated: “If Wallace, at the time he received the burns which caused his death, was not engaged in the work of his employer, then his widow and daughter could have no cause of action against appellee.” There have been many other cases since, including Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Preston, 399 S. W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App., ref., n. r. e.) holding that the claimant must establish that the injury was of a kind and character that had to do with and originated in the employer’s work, business, trade or profession. In Loyd v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 280 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. ref.) suit was brought to recover for injuries sustained by an embalmer who, under his employment, was subject to call at all times and who, while standing on a ladder at home, sustained an injury when the ladder slipped as he was attempting to go and answer his telephone. In sustaining summary judgment for the defendant, the court said:
“It is a cardinal rule pronounced many times in this state that to sustain a judgment for a claimant the evidence must show that his injury occurred during the course of his employment or is so intimately related to his employment as to be a part of it. In our opinion, the evidence wholly fails to show that on the occasion of appellant’s injury he was doing anything in furtherance of his employer’s business. The evidence positively shows that he was painting his house at the time of the injury and while on vacation. It is true that he was injured while getting down from the ladder to answer the telephone, but there is no evidence in the record that he ever answered it or that any one answered it for him, nor is there any evidence that the call was from his employer. The call could have been from some friend or a member of his family, or even a ‘wrong number.’ ”
We think this case is very similar to the one before us as there is no evidence whatever in our case to sustain the appellant’s position except that the deceased was in his own trailer-house which had a telephone, and he was subject to call 24 hours of the day. There is no evidence that the injury was accidental. There is nothing to connect the fire with the duties and obligations of the deceased. As to his being on call, Mr. Crowell, the safety engineer for the employer, FWA Drilling Company, stated that the company’s tool pushers (of which the deceased was one) were subject to 24-hour call, but when they were not on duty they were free to carry on their own business and could do whatever they wanted to do.
Appellant cites us to Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Monroe, 216 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App., n. r. e.) which was a tool pusher case. The court in that case stated that Monroe was a tool pusher who was on continuous duty 24 hours a day and subject to call at all times. The court further pointed out that his duties, which included keeping the well operation in sup[361]*361plies, required him to make frequent trips between Houston and Saratoga. The court pointed out that when he was found dead in the Houston canal, this was on the normal route between Saratoga and Houston and that he had not deviated from the normal route. The court in that case also pointed out that the cases bearing on this problem are not all alike, but the law contemplates that the employee’s duty be continuous. It must be recalled that, in the case before us, the official of the deceased’s employer stated that deceased was on call, but when not on duty was free to carry on his own business and could do whatever he wanted to.
We must and do hold that here the plaintiff-appellant failed to produce any proof or evidence that the deceased met his death in a manner originating in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer which was received while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer. All that could be proved, or was proved, was that the deceased was in his own home when it burned; that he was subject to call 24 hours of the day, and that no one knows how the fire started or its origin. This brings up the fact that the proof is lacking that the fire was accidental and the death resulting therefrom accordingly accidental.
For the court to have submitted this case to the jury on the amount of proof presented would have been to invite the jury to indulge in pure speculation without proof. There was no way to raise a fact issue upon which a jury could determine that Mr. Thomas, the deceased, sustained accidental injuries resulting in his death, or that at the time of receiving such injuries he was in the course of his employment, and that the injuries so received were of a kind and character having to do with and originating in the work, business, trade or profession of his employer and that the injuries and/or death occurred while he was engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer. Appellee points out that when deceased was in his trailer, he was not subjected to any greater risk than any other employee who had worked on that same day and then proceeded home after the completion of his tasks; and appellee also points out with emphasis that the record is totally devoid of any evidence indicating that on the night of the fire Mr. Thomas had performed, or was in the process of performing, any work whatsoever in the furtherance of the affairs or business of FWA Drilling Company.
Therefore, we must hold that plaintiff-appellant was unable to discharge the burden required of claimants under the workmen’s compensation laws and, as a result, presented no jury question and left thé court with no alternative but to grant an instructed verdict.
Appellant’s points, therefore, are overruled and the decision of the trial court is affirmed.