{ "id": 1642469, "name": "Frank Lyon Company v. Oates", "name_abbreviation": "Frank Lyon Co. v. Oates", "decision_date": "1955-12-12", "docket_number": "5-803", "first_page": "682", "last_page": "687", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "225 Ark. 682" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "284 S.W.2d 637" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "222 Ark. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1653127 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/222/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ark. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1609149 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/219/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ark. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1612016 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/218/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 1045", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485127 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/1045-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485124 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 Ark. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1464522 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/215/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485143 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 A. L. R. 1060", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 A. L. R. 469", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 A. L. R. 454", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 A. L. R. 474", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 A. L. R. 123", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 A. L. R. 325", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Miss. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 8818126 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/202/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 N. Y. S. 2d 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N. Y. App. Div. 919", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 2898283, 2880876, 2897511 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/284/0919-02", "/ad/284/0919-03", "/ad/284/0919-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 So. 2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 10086395, 3089261 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/71/0849-01", "/la/224/1078-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 La. 1078", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 10086395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/71/0849-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 A. L. R. 751", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 Mo. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8734686 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/335/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 S. W. 2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10186088, 1336370 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/270/0028-01", "/mo/364/0938-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 N. E. 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 Ill. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2436087 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/315/0352-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 N. Y. S. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 App. Div. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 4682976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/203/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N. W. 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Minn. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 173209 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/141/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 N. Y. S. 2d 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N. Y. App. Div. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 2695901 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/263/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478620 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 S. W. 2d 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1473264, 1473308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/211/0554-01", "/ark/211/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 Ark. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1473264 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/211/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488131 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Atl. 2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 N. J. Misc. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Misc.", "case_ids": [ 436464 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-misc/26/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 N. W. 2d 606", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 Minn. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 232771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/211/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Utah 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8869506 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/64/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 A. L. R. 460", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Pac. 2d 441", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Cal. 2d 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1204650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/1/0730-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 661, "char_count": 11256, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.790220371168285e-07, "percentile": 0.9310353615210771 }, "sha256": "609ec0cd014edcc59e59a044cd0352a9db0c1fccc1f40e1692133daf90d38429", "simhash": "1:0aed8cc79e229319", "word_count": 1967 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:58.446055+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Frank Lyon Company v. Oates." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice.\nThis is a Workmen\u2019s Compensation claim by appellee, a traveling salesman; and is resisted by appellant (employer) on the contention that the appellee\u2019s injuries did not arise \u201cout of and in the course of the employment.\u201d The Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission made an award in favor of the claimant; the Circuit Court affirmed; and the employer has brought'this appeal.\nMr. Oates was employed by Frank Lyon Company as a traveling salesman. His territory consisted of ten counties in Western Arkansas and three adjacent counties in Oklahoma. The eastern boundary of Mr. Oates territory was a north and south line about forty miles west of the Town of Perry and approximately ninety miles west of Little Rock. Mr. Oates worked on a commission basis, furnishing his own car and paying his own expenses. Mr. Oates, a single man, resided with his parents in the Town of Perry, which is not in his territory. He would leave Perry Monday morning, drive westerly to his territory, work in the territory until Friday evening, and then return to Perry for Friday night. On Saturday morning he was required to go to Little Rock to attend a sales meeting at 9:00 o\u2019clock at the Frank Lyon Company. That meeting closed at noon or thereafter ; and then Mr. Oates was free to return to Perry for Sunday and he ready to resume working in his territory Monday. The fact that Mr. Oates stayed with his parents in Perry and returned there after each Saturday sales meeting was known to the Frank Lyon Company.\nThe injuries which Mr. Oates received, as herein involved, occurred on Saturday afternoon when his car went out of control as he was returning to Perry after having attended a sales meeting. The sole question is whether the injuries were received \u201cout of and in the course of the employment. \u201d It is conceded by appellant that Mr. Oates, after attending to some personal matters in Little Rock, was on the direct road returning from Little Rock to Perry at the time of the mishap; but appellant insists that Mr. Oates\u2019 presence at the sales meeting was required the same as was the attendance of the three other salesmen, who were residents of Little Rock; and that under the \u201cgoing and coming rule\u201d the employee is not covered by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law for injuries occurring en route to the place of business. In addition to the cases from our own State\u2014 hereinafter to be mentioned \u2014 appellant cites such cases as Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 1 Cal. 2d 730, 37 Pac. 2d 441, 96 A. L. R. 460; Covey-Ballard Motor Co. v. Industrial Comm., 64 Utah 1, 227 Pac. 1028; Lunde v. Congoleum-Nairn Co., 211 Minn. 487, 1 N. W. 2d 606; and Dooley v. Smith Trans. Co., 26 N. J. Misc. 129, 57 Atl. 2d 554.\nFor an injury to an employee to be compensable under the Arkansas Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law the injury must, among other essentials, arise \u201cout of and in the course of the employment\u201d; and as regards most workers, injuries sustained in going to or returning from work are held to be non-compensable. Such injuries are ruled out of compensability because of tbe \u201cgoing and coming rule.\u201d In 58 Am. Jur. 723 this rule is stated:\n\u2018 \u2018 The hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from their regular place of work, before reaching or after leaving the employer\u2019s premises, are not ordinarily incident to the employment, and for this reason injuries resulting from such hazards are in most instances held not to be compensable as arising out of and in the course of the employment. This general rule is subject, however, in most jurisdictions, to certain well recognized exceptions which depend upon the nature, circumstances, and conditions of the particular employment, and the cause of the injury.\u201d\nThere are many, many well recognized exceptions to the \u201cgoing and coming rule\u201d; and employees coming within such exceptions are held to have received their injuries arising \u201cout of and in the course of the employment. \u2019 \u2019 \"We list only a few such exceptions:\n(a) Where the employer furnishes a method of transportation. See Hunter v. Summerville, 205 Ark. 463, 169 S. W. 2d 579; and Tinsman Mfg. Co. v. Sparks, 211 Ark. 554, 201 S. W. 2d 573.\n(b) When the employee is injured while in close proximity to the place of business. See Bales v. Service Club, 208 Ark. 692, 187 S. W. 2d 321.\n(c) When the employee has a duty to perform for the employer while en route home.\n(d) Another exception to the \u201cgoing and coming rule,\u201d and involved in the present case, is the so-called \u201ctraveling salesman rule.\u201d\nIn 58 Am. Jur. 730, in discussing the compensability of injuries to employees, the performance of whose duties necessitates their traveling from place to place away from the premises of the employer, the text states:\n\u2018 \u2018 The course of the employment of a traveling salesman, for the purposes of workmen\u2019s compensation, covers both the time and place of the traveling as well as of the selling of goods.\u201d\nAnd under the traveling salesman exception employees have received compensation in a vast variety of situations. In 71 C. J. 704 to 706 the holdings are summarized in this language :\n\u201cOutside workers, traveling salesmen or solicitors. Where the nature of an employee\u2019s work is such that it is actually, usually, or customarily performed while the employee is off the premises of the employer, harm which befalls such employee while he is engaged in his work away from the premises of the employer may be compensable as arising out of and in the course of the employment. . . . Harm sustained by a traveling representative of his employer may be compensable notwithstanding such harm is sustained while the employee is away from the premises of the employer. \u2019 \u2019\nProfessor Larson, in his treatise on \u201cWorkmen\u2019s Compensation Law,\u201d says in Yol. 1, \u00a7 16.00:\n\u201cThe most obvious application (exception to the \u2018going and coming rule\u2019) is, of course, to the traveling salesman. It is well established that his travels are within the course of his employment from the time he leaves home on a business trip until he returns, for the self-evident reason that the traveling itself is a large part of the job. . . .\u201d\nSchneider, in his text on \u201cWorkmen\u2019s Compensation,\u201d Permanent Ed., Vol. 7, \u00a7 1665, summarized the holdings allowing traveling salesmen to recover in this language:\n\u201cWhere the trip or attendance is one which the employer ordered or directed, or is for the sole benefit of the employer, or is to the mutual advantage of both the employer and his employee, compensation may be recovered.\u201d\nThere are numerous cases involving factual situations somewhat similar or analogous to the case at bar, and in which the employee was allowed compensation. For some such, see Teshnor v. F. E. Compton & Co., 263 N. Y. App. Div. 263, 32 N. Y. S. 2d 266; State ex rel. McCarthy v. Dist. Court, 141 Minn. 61, 169 N. W. 274; Harby v. Marwell Bros., Inc., 203 App. Div. 525, 196 N. Y. S. 729; Solar-Sturges Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 315 Ill. 352, 146 N. E. 572; Spradling v. International Shoe Co. (Mo.), 270 S. W. 2d 28; Newman v. Rice Stix, 335 Mo. 572, 73 S. W. 2d 264, 94 A. L. R. 751; Green v. Heard Motor Co., 224 La. 1078, 71 So. 2d 849; Townsend v. General Aniline & Film Corp., 284 N. Y. App. Div. 919, 134 N. Y. S. 2d 415. Whittemore Bros. Corp. v. De Grandpre, 202 Miss. 190, 30 So. 2d 896, is an interesting case: there the Mississippi Court applied the Massachusetts Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law to a claim of a traveling man en route from his Arkansas territory to his headquarters in Vicksburg, Mississippi; and allowed a recovery. Other cases are collected in West\u2019s Decennial Digest System, \u201cWorkmen\u2019s Compensation,\u201d \u00a7 715. See Annotations in 20 A. L. R. 325; 29 A. L. R. 123; 36 A. L. R. 474; 49 A. L. R. 454; 63 A. L. R. 469; and 100 A. L. R. 1060.\nAppellant insists that the case at bar is ruled by our holding in Fox Bros. v. Ryland, 206 Ark. 680, 177 S. W. 2d 44, wherein we denied compensation to Ryland for injuries he received on the sidewalk en route to the hotel where he was going to \u201ckill a little time.\u201d The Ryland case was on the borderline, and its holding must be confined to the particular facts; but, even so, there is a big distinction between the Ryland case and the one at bar. Byland was a salesman in Pine Bluff with limited territory. He left the company office and started on a personal journey to the hotel, which was a deviation from his direct route; and it was while he was on such deviation that he received his injuries. That the opinion was bottomed on the idea of deviation is shown by the following language:\n\u201c. . . a majority of the Court are of the opinion that there was no evidence in this case to the effect that the trip to the hotel constituted any part of his duties, and that the fact that he was willing to make a sale, in the event he had met a customer while on the trip, is not sufficient to establish that his intended visit to the hotel was to be made in the course of his employment.\u201d\nIn the case at bar Mr. Oates was regularly required by the Frank Lyon Company to go to Little Bock for a sales meeting each Saturday morning. That trip was certainly a part of his duties. It was while he was returning from Little Bock to his assigned territory, and on no deviation whatsoever, that he received his injuries. It is true that he was en route from Little Bock to Perry; but Perry is on the direct route from Little Bock to Mr. Oates \u2019 territory.\nWe therefore hold that the Commission correctly allowed a recovery in this case.\nAffirmed.\nThe quoted language is found in the definition of \u201cInjuries,\u201d \u00a7 81-1302 (b) Ark. Stats.\nFor some Arkansas cases involving application of the \u201cgoing and coming rule,\u201d see O\u2019Mearn v. Beasley, 215 Ark. 665, 221 S. W. 2d 882; Stroud v. Gurdon Lbr. Co., 206 Ark. 490, 177 S. W. 2d 181; Cerrato v. McGeorge, 206 Ark. 1045, 178 S. W. 2d 247; Penny v. Hudson, 218 Ark. 594, 237 S. W. 2d 893; and Thornton v. Texarkana, 219 Ark. 650, 243 S. W. 2d 940.\nSome of these are stated in 58 Am. Jur. 731 in the following language: \u201cIn the application of the foregoing general principles in particular instances or classes of situations, such as injuries while at hotels or other lodging or eating places, while traveling on boats or trains, while boarding or alighting from streetcars, while flying,_ while traveling in taxicabs, automobiles, or hired vehicles, while waiting or resting, while going toward a station, hotel, conveyance, or home, while going home for the week end, while going toward the employer\u2019s place of business, while proceeding toward the employee\u2019s working territory or area of service, while performing work, or while engaged in social or recreational activities, . . .\u201d We quote the foregoing_ language as illustrative only, and without binding effect should similar situations arise in our jurisdiction.\nIn our later case of Cagle v. Gladden-Driggers Co., 222 Ark. 517, 261 S. W. 2d 536, we affirmed the Commission which refused compensation benefits to a salesman who was injured while on a private mission.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Goodwin & Riff el, for appellant.", "Wright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Frank Lyon Company v. Oates.\n5-803\n284 S. W. 2d 637\nOpinion delivered December 12, 1955.\nGoodwin & Riff el, for appellant.\nWright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0682-01", "first_page_order": 704, "last_page_order": 709 }