No. 00-80363 (2002). Tipton v. Broadway Florist.
Case Date | January 30, 2002 |
Court | Kentucky |
Kentucky Workers Compensation
2002.
No. 00-80363 (2002).
Tipton v. Broadway Florist
LESLIE MARIE
TIPTON PETITIONER vs. BROADWAY FLORIST and HON. J. LANDON OVERFIELD,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTSOPINION
ENTERED: January 30, 2002CLAIM NO. 00-80363APPEAL FROM HON. J. LANDON OVERFIELD, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AFFIRMING
* * * * * * BEFORE: LOVAN, Chairman, STANLEY and GARDNER, Members.STANLEY, Member. Leslie Marie
Tipton ("Tipton") appeals from an opinion and order rendered by Hon. J. Landon
Overfield, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), dismissing her workers'
compensation claim against Broadway Florist ("Broadway"). The ALJ concluded
that the injury Tipton received in a collision while driving a delivery van for
Broadway was not in the course and scope of her employment with the employer.
He found that Tipton had deviated from her employment duties to such an extent
that she was no longer in the course and scope of her employment when the
collision in question occurred. On appeal, Tipton argues the ALJ erred in
finding that her motor vehicle accident occurred outside the course and scope
of her employment. The ALJ bifurcated the issue of work-relatedness of Tipton's
injury which resulted from a motor vehicle collision occurring on January 14,
2000. Tipton's position was that the collision occurred in the course and scope
of her employment. Broadway's defense was that Tipton was involved in a "road
rage" situation with a third party and thus having deviated from the course and
scope of her employment, the injury was noncompensable. The Board, having
reviewed the ALJ's rendition of the lay testimony in the record concerning the
occurrence of the motor vehicle accident, adopts the ALJ's findings of fact as
follows:
Plaintiff's deposition was taken April 10, 2001. Plaintiff
testified that he went to work for Defendant Employer January 3, 2000 as a
delivery person. Her injury occurred January 14, 2000. Plaintiff testified that
she was making a delivery and was unable to find the street where her next
delivery was to occur. She was stopped at a stop sign in a subdivision area
apparently looking at a map. She noticed a vehicle behind her at the stop sign
and exited her delivery van and went back to ask directions. Plaintiff
testified that `he was just already in a bad mood' and when Plaintiff asked
directions the stranger began berating her about delivery people not being able
to find the subject of the deliveries, etc. The stranger had a small child in
the vehicle with him and Plaintiff apologized for her intrusion, wished him a
nice day and returned to the van. The stranger abruptly pulled around the van
being driven by Plaintiff, offered the universal obscene gesture, went through
the stop sign and left the area.
Plaintiff testified that she decided that she would forget this
delivery for the time being and go get lunch. She went out onto Shelbyville
Road and found herself behind the irate stranger driving down Shelbyville Road.
She testified that the stranger was in one lane and she was in another and she
then pulled in behind him so that their vehicles were in the same lane. She
testified that he suddenly stopped in front of her and she slammed on her
brakes, left 55 feet of skid marks but could not avoid the collision and struck
his vehicle in...
To continue reading
Request your trial