Scullin Steel Co. v. Whiteside

5 Citing cases

  1. Snowbarger v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op

    793 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. 1990)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming award of compensation to worker who fell asleep while driving home after being required to work "unusually long overtime hours" of manual labor, eighty-six hours in one hundred hour period

    The court of appeals held the Commission's finding that Snowbarger fell asleep at the wheel of his car was supported by substantial competent evidence, Sellers v. Trans World Airlines, 752 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Mo.App. 1988), and that the condition Snowbarger faced was caused by his employment, yet concluded the accident occurred too far away from the employer's place of work to be compensable. The court held that an exception to the general rule of non-liability for injuries incurred by an employee traveling to and from work required that the condition and resulting injury be in close proximity to the place of employment, under Scullin Steel Co. v. Whiteside, 682 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App. 1984); Beck v. Edison Brothers Stores, 657 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App. 1983); Zahn v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 655 S.W.2d 769 (Mo.App. 1983); and Hunt v. Allis-Chalmers, 445 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.App. 1969). Because Mitchell Snowbarger's accident occurred approximately 22 miles from his place of employment, after he had been driving for 20 to 30 minutes, the court differed with the Commission and concluded the injury did not occur in the course of his employment, under section 287.020.5, RSMo 1986.

  2. Blades v. Commercial Transport, Inc.

    30 S.W.3d 827 (Mo. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    In Blades, the Supreme Court considered whether the mutual benefit doctrine could be applied to a truck driver who sought workers' compensation for injuries that occurred when he slipped on icy steps while walking into a union hall to testify at an arbitration hearing.

    At no point does Blades address McQuerrey or attempt to distinguish it. Instead, he refers the Court to Scullin Steel Co. v. Whiteside, 682 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App. 1984). Blades' reliance on Scullin Steel is misplaced.

  3. Jones v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.

    811 S.W.2d 516 (Tenn. 1991)   Cited 45 times

    We believe, however, that the better analysis, and that most consistent with our other cases applying a "mutual benefit" test, is that a union activity is "in the course of employment" if the activity is of mutual benefit to the employee and the employer. See Scullin Steel Co. v. Whiteside, 682 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. 1984) (benefits awarded to union shop steward for injuries sustained in an assault by a co-employee following an argument over a grievance); New England Telephone Co. v. Ames, 124 N.H. 661, 474 A.2d 571 (1984) (benefits awarded to union bargaining representative injured during contract negotiations); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook, 313 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Iowa 1981) (benefits awarded to chairman of union grievance committee injured while en route from the union hall, where he had engaged in grievance committee work, to the plant, where he was due to engage in negotiations); Mikkelsen v. N.L. Industries, 72 N.J. 209, 370 A.2d 5, 7 (1977) (benefits awarded to employee injured in a parking lot across town from the employer's premises, following a union meeting to vote on a contract offer by management); Repco Products Corp. v. Workmens Compensation App. Bd., 32 Pa.Cmwlth. 554, 379 A.2d 1089, 1092 (1977) (benefits awarded to widow of union shop steward for death resulting from assault by co-work

  4. State v. Hill

    2018 Ohio 4800 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    (Citation omitted.) State v. Williams , 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 11, 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997) ; State v. Wagner , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 48433, 1985 WL 7448, *2 (Jan. 17, 1985) ("Ohio law is clear that evidence of flight from the scene of a crime may be considered as some evidence of guilt"). {ΒΆ 54} Similarly, exculpatory statements, "when shown to be false or misleading, are circumstantial evidence of guilty consciousness and have independent probative value."

  5. Panzau v. JDLB, Inc.

    169 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    An injury that occurs during an activity mutually beneficial to the employer and the employee arises out of and in the course of employment. Scullin Steel Co. v. Whiteside, 682 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.E.D. 1984). "[A]n injury suffered by an employee while performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee is usually compensable."