{ "id": 236217, "name": "Jimmy GREEN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Green v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.", "decision_date": "1997-07-07", "docket_number": "96-1059", "first_page": "345", "last_page": "349", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "329 Ark. 345" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "948 S.W.2d 92" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "297 Ark. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891338 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "refusing to review a decision from the Court of Appeals after the petition was initially granted by this court" }, { "parenthetical": "refusing to review a decision from the Court of Appeals after the petition was initially granted by this court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.W.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1719945 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0926-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 927", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "572 So.2d 1360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 7535010 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/572/1360-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 A.L.R.4th 110", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00a7 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 Ark. App. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137244 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Arthur Larson & Lex L. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law \u00a7 13.11(d) (1997)" }, { "parenthetical": "citing Arthur Larson & Lex L. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law \u00a7 13.11(d) (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/39/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ark. App. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6649140 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/33/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. App. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6659922 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/22/0132-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 422, "char_count": 6755, "ocr_confidence": 0.742, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.00912138120793915 }, "sha256": "78410d73ee68cfbd905eeeebe17e9b5478c37f1c53415fa39367fcb021d3b445", "simhash": "1:a737ee4f35eb80fa", "word_count": 1053 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:12.305718+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Brown, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Jimmy GREEN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.\nThis is a workers\u2019 compensation case that we initially agreed to review upon Coca-Cola Bottling Company\u2019s petition. Upon further examination, we conclude that the petition for review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the petition is denied, and the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision in Green v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., CA95-1117 (Ark. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 1996), remains the binding ruling in this case.\nThe underlying facts of this case are undisputed because the parties presented the case to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission on a stipulated record. On July 1, 1992, Jimmy Green sustained a compensable injury while working for the Coca-Cola Bottling Company (\u201cCoca-Cola\u201d). On March 23, 1993, Green traveled to his doctor\u2019s office in Pine Bluff for an appointment regarding his earlier injury. When Green was approximately eight miles outside of Pine Bluff, he observed an elderly woman experiencing car trouble on the side of the highway. Because Green was early for his appointment, he decided to turn around in a private driveway so that he could assist the stranded motorist. While attempting to turn into the driveway, Green was struck from behind and injured.\nGreen applied for workers\u2019 compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained while traveling to the doctor\u2019s office. The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission applied the \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d doctrine, which the Court of Appeals has previously adopted and summarized as follows:\nactivities undertaken by the employee following upon his or her injury which, although they take place outside the time and space limits of the employment, and would not be considered employment activities for usual purposes, are nevertheless related to the employment in the sense that they are necessary or reasonable activities that would not have been undertaken but for the compensable injury.\nPreway, Inc. v. Davis, 22 Ark. App. 132, 736 S.W.2d 21 (1987); Wolfe v. City of El Dorado, 33 Ark. App. 25, 799 S.W.2d 812 (1990); Eagle Safe Corp. v. Egan, 39 Ark. App. 79, 842 S.W.2d 438 (1992) (citing Arthur Larson & Lex L. Larson, Larson\u2019s Workers\u2019 Compensation Law \u00a7 13.11(d) (1997)). The Commission found that Green\u2019s journey to the doctor\u2019s office fell under the \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d doctrine because the trip was a reasonable and necessary activity relating to the prior compensable injury. The Commission, however, concluded that Green deviated from his otherwise compensable journey when he attempted to assist the stranded motorist. Because Green\u2019s deviation did not advance the employer\u2019s interest and was not causally related to a risk reasonably incident to the employment, the Commission held that Green\u2019s injuries were not compensable.\nOn appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission that Green\u2019s journey to the doctor\u2019s office fell under the \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d doctrine. However, the Court of Appeals applied a different standard from that used by the Commission to determine whether Green\u2019s attempt to assist the stranded motorist was an impermissible deviation from an otherwise compensable journey. Specifically, the Court of Appeals applied Larson\u2019s \u201cprohibited-conduct\u201d test which declares that:\nWhen the injury following the initial compensable injury arises out of a quasi-course activity, such as a trip to the doctor\u2019s office, the chain of causation should not be deemed broken by mere negligence in the performance of the activity, but only by intentional conduct which may be regarded as expressly or impliedly prohibited by the employer.\nId. (citing Larson, supra, \u00a7 13.11(d)). Because there was no proof that Green\u2019s attempt to assist the stranded motorist was prohibited by Coca-Cola, the Court of Appeals held that Green\u2019s injuries were compensable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the Commission\u2019s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.\nWe granted Coca-Cola\u2019s petition for review pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(e) (as amended by per curiam July 15, 1996). In their briefs and during oral arguments, both Coca-Cola and Green assume that the \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d doctrine is the appropriate standard to apply in this case. Although the Court of Appeals has previously recognized this doctrine, this court has never adopted Larson\u2019s \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d doctrine nor have we been asked to do so in this case.\nMoreover, we have never determined the appropriate test for ascertaining whether a claimant has deviated from a \u201cquasi-course of employment\u201d journey. Although the parties have offered no guidance in this area, our research reveals that courts have applied a variety of tests to resolve the deviation inquiry. In this case, the Court of Appeals applied Larson\u2019s prohibited- conduct test. Other jurisdictions, however, have focused upon the temporal and geographic extent of the deviation. Cheryl M. Bailey, Workers Compensation: Compensability of Injuries Incurred Traveling To or From Medical Treatment of Earlier Compensable Injuries, 83 A.L.R.4th 110, \u00a7 14 (1991). Some courts have applied the \u201cpositional risk doctrine\u201d which states that the injury is compensable if the conditions of employment place the claimant in a position which requires him by ordinary standards of humanity to undertake the rescue. D.L. Cullifer & Son, Inc. v. Martinez, 572 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1990); Larson, supra, \u00a7 28.00. Other courts have focused on whether the deviation is insubstantial, and whether the \u201cgood-samaritan\u201d act promoted good will toward the claimant\u2019s employer. Bunny Bread et at. v. Shipman, 267 Ark. 927, 591 S.W.2d 692 (1980); Larson, supra, \u00a7\u00a7 19.00 and 27.22.\nIn sum, there are several ways to analyze the fact pattern presented by this case. The parties, however, have faded to argue which standard should be adopted by this court. We are hesitant to resolve such an important issue of first impression without a specific request to do so and without adequate legal argument upon which to base bur decision.\nFor these reasons, we find that the petition for review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we decline Coca-Cola\u2019s request to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Green v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., CA95-1117 (Ark. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 1996). See Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone, Co., 297 Ark. 24, 759 S.W.2d 792 (1988) (refusing to review a decision from the Court of Appeals after the petition was initially granted by this court).\nReview denied.\nBrown, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice." }, { "text": "Brown, J.,\ndissenting. I dissent and would address the issue of substantial evidence.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Brown, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Searcy Wood Harrell, for appellant.", "Michael J. Dennis, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jimmy GREEN v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY\n96-1059\n948 S.W.2d 92\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 7, 1997\nSearcy Wood Harrell, for appellant.\nMichael J. Dennis, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0345-01", "first_page_order": 369, "last_page_order": 373 }