{ "id": 2869563, "name": "Dolores AVILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PLEASURETIME SODA, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company, Inc., an insurance company authorized to issue insurance in the State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Avila v. Pleasuretime Soda, Inc.", "decision_date": "1977-07-26", "docket_number": "No. 2865", "first_page": "707", "last_page": "710", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 N.M. 707" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "568 P.2d 233" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "284 N.E.2d 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 Mass. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 43886 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/362/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 N.Y.S. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 App.Div. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 4742476 ], "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/208/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 A. 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 Pa. 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1095136 ], "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/285/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 P.2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Cal. Rptr. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Cal.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2337804 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/61/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Minn. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 366412 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "749" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/264/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N.M. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1560819 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/48/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 P.2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.M. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1578131 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/51/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582973 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582908 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582960 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2852077 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5348153 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2773475 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N.M. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5317443 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/61/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.M. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2865581 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/89/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.M. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2847772 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/66/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.M. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5321671 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/73/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2808208 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2838017 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2872687 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 N.M. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1586559 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" }, { "page": "689" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/36/0141-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 582, "char_count": 9586, "ocr_confidence": 0.819, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7719722426227098e-07, "percentile": 0.7122384355226887 }, "sha256": "4ef95a26a0d7ca9708ce2cd5ac2144d5355120b70fb6adcf3ba5602a869834c4", "simhash": "1:2f7d984c18256d6b", "word_count": 1608 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LOPEZ, J., and PAUL SNEAD, District Judge, concur." ], "parties": [ "Dolores AVILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PLEASURETIME SODA, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company, Inc., an insurance company authorized to issue insurance in the State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nThe \u201cgoing and coming\u201d provision of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 59-10-12.-12, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 1,1975 Supp.) is the subject matter of this appeal by defendants. The trial court awarded a judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. We affirm.\nPlaintiff was employed by defendant Pleasuretime Soda, Inc. as a manager of a retail soda pop outlet. She opened and closed the business. In addition to her usual duties during regular working hours, plaintiff closed the business and made nightly deposits at a bank every working day. The bank was located at 1900 Bridge Boulevard, S.W. in Albuquerque, a point east of Coors Road and Bridge Boulevard. Plaintiff drove her own car at her own expense.\nDefendant Pleasuretime\u2019s business was located at 1248 Coors Road, S.W. Plaintiff\u2019s residence was located at 425 65th Street, S.W., north of Bridge Boulevard and west of Coors Road.\nJust giving addresses cannot adequately describe the problem. To perform her after hours banking duty for her employer, plaintiff had to drive north on Coors Road to Bridge Boulevard, then east on Bridge Boulevard to the bank and make the deposit for her employer. On her return home, plaintiff had to drive west on Bridge Boulevard to Coors Road, north on Coors Road to a point at which she would leave Coors Road to drive home.\nOn the night in question, plaintiff made the deposit at the bank. After leaving the bank, she drove west on Bridge Boulevard. Prior to reaching Coors Road, the accident in question occurred.\nSection 59-10-12.12, supra, reads in pertinent part:\nAs used in the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [59-10-1 to 59-10-37], unless the context otherwise requires, \u201cinjury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment\u201d shall include accidental injuries to workmen, . . . as a result of their employment and while at work in any place where their employer\u2019s business requires their presence, but shall not include injuries to any workman occurring while on his way to assume the duties of his employment or after leaving such duties . . . . [Emphasis added.]\nThe question for decision is:\nDid plaintiff, driving west on Bridge Boulevard from the bank to Coors Road, suffer an accidental injury \u201cwhile at work in any place where [her] employer\u2019s business requires [her] presence,\u201d or did the accidental injury occur after leaving the duties of her employment as provided by Section 59-10-12.12?\nTo answer the question requires an interpretation of \u00a7 59-10-12.12.\nThe assistance of counsel on this appeal has been displeasing.\nIt requires no citation of authority that the' Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act must be liberally construed to accomplish beneficent purposes for which it was enacted, and that all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of employees.\nIn a concurring opinion in Cuellar v. American Employers\u2019 Ins. Co. of Boston, Mass., 36 N.M. 141, 148, 9 P.2d 685, 689 (1932), Justice Watson said:\nThe situation of the workman on his way to and from his duties had long been a no man\u2019s land.\nIt still is.\nThe trial court found that defendant\u2019s business required plaintiff to \u201cdeviate\u201d from her route home to make the bank deposit. We agree. At the time plaintiff closed her employer\u2019s business, she left the duties of her regular working hours at the place of business. She did not leave the duties of her employment. These duties continued to the time she deposited her employer\u2019s money in the bank and then returned to that point on the highway which would constitute her normal route home and the termination of her duties of employment.\nThe area of \u201cdeviation\u201d was on Bridge Boulevard from Coors Road to the bank and a return to Coors Road. It naturally follows that during the time plaintiff drove east from Coors Road to the bank and then drove west to Coors Road, plaintiff was at work at a place where her employer\u2019s business required her to be.\nIf the facts in the case are termed a \u201cdeviation\u201d or a \u201cdetour\u201d for a business purpose, the business character persisted throughout the deviation until the plaintiff made her way back to the personal route home. 1 Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law \u00a7\u00a7 19.36, 19.37 (1972); see, Clark v. Electronic City, 90 N.M. 477, 565 P.2d 348 (Ct.App. 1977).\nDefendant relies on Edens v. New Mexico Health & Social Services Dept., 88 N.M. 366, 540 P.2d 846 (Ct.App. 1975); Rinehart v. Mossman-Gladden, Inc., 77 N.M. 470, 423 P.2d 991 (1967); McDonald v. Artesia General Hospital, 73 N.M. 188, 386 P.2d 708 (1963), and Ross v. Marberry & Company, 66 N.M. 404, 349 P.2d 123 (1960).\nThe trouble with many lawyers in the trial and appeal of a case is a failure to note whether certiorari has been granted in a case relied on. In Edens, supra, certiorari was granted and the ease reversed in Edens v. New Mexico Health & Social Services Dept., 89 N.M. 60, 547 P.2d 65 (1976), 8Vi months before the present case was tried. The Supreme Court allowed recovery of workmen\u2019s compensation. Decedent and other employees of HSSD were required to attend a two-day conference in Santa Fe. They met at a parking lot in Albuquerque, proceeded to Santa Fe in decedent\u2019s car, and then returned to the parking lot. After the other employees disembarked, decedent proceeded on her way home. While driving from the parking lot, decedent was involved in a collision, sustaining injuries from which decedent subsequently died. In reversing this Court, the Supreme Court decided two matters of vital \u2022 importance:\n(1) The \u201cspecial errand\u201d rule is an exception to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule. Each employee is covered under the Act during transportation to or from work so long as the travel was required at the direction of the employer.\n(2) Where the historical facts of a case are undisputed, the question of whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment is a question of law.\nIn the instant case, the historical facts are undisputed, and plaintiff performed a \u201cspecial errand\u201d every working day as a matter of law.\nIn Rinehart and McDonald, relied upon by defendant, the employee was injured after regular work had ended and the employee was on the way home. In Ross, the employee was on the way from home to the place of employment to assume the duties of employment. To these cases we may add, Martinez v. Fidel, 61 N.M. 6, 293 P.2d 654 (1956), and Hayes v. Ampex Corporation, 85 N.M. 444, 512 P.2d 1280 (Ct.App. 1973). The cases relied upon by defendant are not applicable when the zone of employment danger has been extended beyond the employer\u2019s premises, and plaintiff runs \u201cspecial errands\u201d every working day.\nFor other exceptions to the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule, see Sullivan v. Rainbo Baking Company, 71 N.M. 9, 375 P.2d 326 (1962); Whitehurst v. Rainbo Baking Company, 70 N.M. 468, 374 P.2d 849 (1962); Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co., 55 N.M. 81, 227 P.2d 365 (1950); Clower v. Grossman, 55 N.M. 546, 237 P.2d 353 (1951); Allen v. D. D. Skousen Const. Co., 55 N.M. 1, 225 P.2d 452 (1950); Barrington v. Johnn Drilling Co., 51 N.M. 172, 181 P.2d 166 (1947); McKinney v. Dorlac, 48 N.M. 149, 146 P.2d 867 (1944).\nWe hold that the instant case is outside the \u201cgoing and coming\u201d rule.\nPlaintiff was employed to perform a \u201cspecial errand\u201d every working day \u2014 the deposit of the employer\u2019s funds in a bank after normal working hours. Here, there is less difficulty in concluding that plaintiff was acting within the scope of her employment.\nYoungberg v. Donlin Company, 264 Minn. 421, 119 N.W.2d 746, 749 (1963), says:\nFrom an examination of the authorities which discuss the so-called special errand rule it appears that it has been applied where (a) there is an express or implied request that the service be performed after working hours by an employee who has fixed hours of employment; (b) the trip involved on the errand be an integral part of the service performed; and (c) the work performed, although related to the employment, be special in the sense that the task requested was not one which was regular and recurring during the normal hours of employment.\nFor cases which support the \u201cspecial errand\u201d rule, see: Schreifer v. Industrial Accident Commission, 61 Cal.2d 289, 38 Cal. Rptr. 352, 391 P.2d 832 (1964) where Ross v. Marberry & Company, supra, is criticized, and cases cited; Cymbor v. Binder Coal Co., 285 Pa. 440, 132 A. 363 (1926); Traynor v. City of Buffalo, 208 App.Div. 216, 203 N.Y.S. 590 (1924). And where it appears that employment \u201cimpelled\u201d an employee to make a trip to his place of employment, see In re Papanastassiou\u2019s Case, 362 Mass. 91, 284 N.E.2d 598 (1972).\nIn the instant case, plaintiff was at work at the place where her employer\u2019s business required her to be. It was incident to the business. In addition, plaintiff falls within the \u201cspecial errand\u201d rule. From Coors Road to the bank on Bridge Boulevard, and plaintiff\u2019s return to Coors Road on Bridge Boulevard, before beginning her trip home, plaintiff was acting in the scope and in the course of her employer\u2019s business.\nPlaintiff is awarded $1,500.00 as attorney fees on this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nLOPEZ, J., and PAUL SNEAD, District Judge, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "LeRoi Farlow, LeRoi Farlow, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellants.", "Lorenzo A. Chavez, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "568 P.2d 233\nDolores AVILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PLEASURETIME SODA, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company, Inc., an insurance company authorized to issue insurance in the State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 2865.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 26, 1977.\nLeRoi Farlow, LeRoi Farlow, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellants.\nLorenzo A. Chavez, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0707-01", "first_page_order": 743, "last_page_order": 746 }