{
  "id": 5377688,
  "name": "Charles Ray McAFOOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BORDEN IMPLEMENT CO., Employer, and the Travelers Insurance Companies, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "McAfoos v. Borden Implement Co.",
  "decision_date": "1965-03-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 7592",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "51",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.M. 50"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "400 P.2d 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 N.M. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1587590
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/58/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804016
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 N.M. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1569658
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/42/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 N.M. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582972
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/55/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.M. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580731
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/53/0234-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 2893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.629,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.41471454835103e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5163281720285623
    },
    "sha256": "0368cce13471f9cb87b2f2b32f08156b80ca87e9ee756b06425e39794e437ada",
    "simhash": "1:a3eb09a3e0052e36",
    "word_count": 487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:05.656930+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Ray McAFOOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BORDEN IMPLEMENT CO., Employer, and the Travelers Insurance Companies, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "NOBLE, Justice.\nClaimant has appealed from a judgment denying his claim for workmen\u2019s compensation.\nInitially, we think it important to note that the facts found by the trial court are those upon which the case rests in this court, unless they are set aside. Bounds v. Carner, 53 N.M. 234, 205 P.2d 216. The court found the following pertinent facts:\n\u201cV. That in connection with such employment and while engaged in his employer\u2019s business, plaintiff was required to use a vehicle belonging to Borden Implement Co., for transportation and that said plaintiff used his own personal vehicle for transportation while in the course of his employment only upon the specific and prior authorization of defendant Borden Implement Co.\n\u201cVI. That said plaintiff was injured while driving his own vehicle and after he had left his employment on the evening of February 26, 1963, at a point north of Clovis, Curry County, New Mexico.\n\u201cVII. That plaintiff was not acting within the course of or scope of his employment at the time of and immediately prior to receiving said injury.\u201d\nWe do not reach claimants attack that finding no. 5 is unsupported by substantial evidence because findings nos. 6 and 7 completely dispose of this appeal. They find not only that claimant was injured at a time when he was not acting within the scope of his employment, but that the injury occurred after he had left his employment. The sufficiency of the evidence to support these findings is not directly attacked and they are, therefore, binding upon this court. Haden v. Eaves, 55 N.M. 40, 226 P.2d 457; Arias v. Springer, 42 N.M. 350, 78 P.2d 153.\nAccepting, as we must, the findings to the effect that the injury was not one \u201carising out of, and in the course of his employment,\u201d it follows that there could be no recovery in workmen\u2019s compensation. Sec. 59-10-13.3, N.M.S.A.1953; Brundage v. K. L. House Construction Co., Inc., 74 N.M. 613, 396 P.2d 731; Walker v. Woldridge, 58 N.M. 183, 268 P.2d 579. Claimant seeks to avoid the effect of findings 6 and 7 by contending that these findings resulted solely from the determination made in finding no. 5 that prior authorization was required to permit his use of his own automobile in the performance of any of his duties for employer, which has no support in the evidence. In view of the express finding that claimant\u2019s injury occurred after he had left his employment, any determination by us as to the basis of the trial court\u2019s finding would be pure speculation.\nIt follows that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nCHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "NOBLE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dan B. Buzzard, Clovis, for appellant. Smith, Smith & Tharp, Qpvis, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "400 P.2d 470\nCharles Ray McAFOOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BORDEN IMPLEMENT CO., Employer, and the Travelers Insurance Companies, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 7592.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 22, 1965.\nDan B. Buzzard, Clovis, for appellant. Smith, Smith & Tharp, Qpvis, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 106,
  "last_page_order": 107
}