{
  "id": 8718544,
  "name": "Sheila STOKES et al v. RICHLAND HOMES MANUFACTURING Company et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stokes v. Richland Homes Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-01",
  "docket_number": "73-147",
  "first_page": "153",
  "last_page": "156",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 Ark. 153"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "499 S.W.2d 597"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 6174,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.853,
    "sha256": "d8b67dfcadfb7acdecfc7738e0c1b4130487da181b953f9dbe45042931fe6d2e",
    "simhash": "1:38e34333f166b55b",
    "word_count": 1052
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:11.540726+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sheila STOKES et al v. RICHLAND HOMES MANUFACTURING Company et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a claim for death benefits under the workmen\u2019s compensation law. The decedent, John Doyle Stokes, was employed by the appellee Richland Homes Manufacturing Company at the time of his death in a traffic accident in 1971. The commission, whose decision was upheld by the circuit court, denied compensation on the ground that Stokes\u2019 death did not occur in the course of his employment. Whether that finding is sustained by substantial evidence is the question on appeal.\nRichland manufactures, sells, and delivers mobile homes. Stokes was one of Richland\u2019s three regular drivers, who were employed to drive Richland\u2019s trucks in the delivery of mobile homes. The drivers were paid a minimum weekly wage, plus from 16 to 21 cents a mile for delivering the mobile homes.\nHighway regulations, as they are pertinent to this case, required that a truck pulling a mobile home be accompanied by two specially equipped escort vehicles, one ahead of the truck and the other behind it. Richland did. not own any escort vehicles or directly employ any escort drivers. Instead, Richland required its truckdrivers to, arrange for their escorts. Richland did, however, pay its drivers an extra 30 cents a mile to enable the drivers in turn to pay the escorts.\n: When the drivers reported for work at Richland\u2019s plant in Manila on the morning of July 27, 1971,Rich-land had a delivery for one of its drivers, Tommy Horton, but did not have a delivery for Stokes. That meknt that Stokes was free to do anything he liked for the rest of the day. Stokes agreed to act as one of Horton\u2019s escorts, driving an escort truck owned, by Horton. Stokes and Horton had escorted each other in the past, swapping their services rather than making payments to one another. Richland knew that its drivers worked as escorts when off duty and had no objection to that' practice; . ,\nThe other escort that day was W.H. Wallace, who drove his own vehicle, Stokes drove Horton\u2019s escort truck and was accompanied by a friend, Melyin Girdley, wh<j> went along for the swimming and water skiing that the \u00a1men planned for later in the day.\n| The caravan of three vehicles proceeded' from Manila to Heb\u00e9r Springs, where the mobile home Was delivered to Richland\u2019s consignee. On the way the group were stopped by a Commerce Commission agent, and Stokes rewired some lights on the mobile home. Stokes bought a case of beer during the trip.\njThe mobile home was delivered at about 3:00 p.m. The escort drivers then had no further responsibilities \u00e1nd\u00a1 were at liberty to gq their own way. The four men actually went to Greers Ferry Lake and swam, skied, and drank beer until about 8:00 p.m. When they started back to Manila, Horton drove the Richland truck, with. Girdley as his passenger; Wallace drove his. car; and Stokes drove' Horton\u2019s escort truck.\nThe party met again at Newport to get something to eat. Horton thought that*Stokes had had enough to drink. When the group left Newport, Stokes was riding as a passenger in the Richland truck with Horton, and Girdley was driving Horton\u2019s smaller truck. On the way Horton dozed off and ran off the -road, the Richland truck overturned, and Stokes was killed.\nCounsel for the claimants argue that Stokes\u2019 death occurred either in the course of his regular employment by Richland or in the course of his special employment as an escort driver. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support the commission\u2019s finding that Stokes\u2019 death did not take place in the course of his employment in either capacity.\nWe first consider Stokes\u2019 status as a special employee. Stokes had no responsibilities as an escort driver after the mobile home -was delivered to its consignee. We may assume, without so deciding, that if Stokes had been injured or killed while driving Horton\u2019s escort truck back to Manila, the commission might have found the occurrence to have been within the course of Stokes\u2019 special employment. But that did not happen. Stokes had been replaced by Girdley as the driver of the escort vehicle. If Horton had the authority to bind Richland by employing St\u00f3kes as an escort, then Horton necessarily had the correlative authority to replace Stokes when that action became advisable. Girdley then became the special employee. To hold that Stokes was still a special employee while riding as a passenger with Horton would mean that Richland and its insurance carrier were responsible for a total of three escort drivers at the same time, although no such situation was ever contemplated by anyone.\nThere remains Stokes\u2019 status as a regular employee. The difficulty here is that Stokes did not undertake the trip in his capacity as a regular employee and was not performing any services as such at the time of the fatal accident. It is undisputed that on the day in question Stokes had no duties as a regular Richland driver after he was told in the morning that the employer had no delivery for him that day. Counsel argue, however, that. Stokes resumed his status as a regular employee when he got in the company truck to ride back to his home in Manila with Horton, because he had to report for' work at Manila the next morning. Richland, however, had no duty to provide Stokes with return, transportation to Manila in the circumstances of this case. To the contrary, in the normal course of events there would have been three drivers on the road with three v\u00e9hicles, so that Stokes would not have had any occasion to ride with Horton as a passenger. He certainly was performing no duties for Richland. Larson points out that \u201can isolated and unauthorized ride in the employer\u2019s conveyance has usually been held to be outside the course of employment.\u201d Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation, \u00a7 17.30 (1972). We cannot say that the commission was without any substantial basis in the proof in concluding that Stokes was not serving Richland in his capacity as a truckdriver at the time of his death.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Partlow ir Mayes and Oscar Fendler, for appellants.",
      "Reid, Burge &r Prevallet, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sheila STOKES et al v. RICHLAND HOMES MANUFACTURING Company et al\n73-147\n499 S.W. 2d 597\nOpinion delivered October 1, 1973\nPartlow ir Mayes and Oscar Fendler, for appellants.\nReid, Burge &r Prevallet, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0153-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 178
}