Opinion

Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore

  • 143 Fla. 103
  • 196 So. 495
  • 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1163
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
May 21, 1940
Status
Published
Author
Buford
On the bench
Terrell, Chapman, Whitfield, Brown, Thomas, Buford
Cited by
64 cases

holding that generally, “the injury must occur within the period of the employment”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that generally, “the injury must occur within the period of the employment”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Buford, J.

(dissenting). — It is my opinion that when Moore was taking his wife home he was.not on his employer’s business but, having taken his wife home he there ended his personal mission and when he started back to his employer’s place of business to fulfill his obligation to his employer, he was from that moment on his employer’s business in the discharge of the duty which he was obligated to perform.

It was not necessary to return to the employer’s place of business except for the purpose of discharging the duty to his employer which he was obligated to discharge.

It was his personal duty to take his wife home because of her then condition. He could have stayed at home with her in disregard of his duty to his employer. He did not

*108

do that but chose to discharge his duty to his employer and attending to his employer’s business. I think the award should be affirmed.

Chapman, J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.