Drew v. Tappan Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DROWOTA, Justice.
The sole question raised in this worker’s compensation appeal is whether the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court held that it did and allowed recovery. The employer and its insurance carrier have appealed.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. Appellee, Jack Drew, at the time of the accident was an employee of the defendant, Tappan Company. The defendant had inadequate parking on company premises, and the one parking lot provided was undergoing repair work at the time of the injury. There was a gravel road that ran…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Johnson Coffee Co. v. McDonaldTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
- Kingsport Silk Mills v. CoxTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
- Bennett v. Vanderbilt UniversityTennessee Supreme Court · 1955
- Smith v. Camel Mfg. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1951
- McKinney v. Hardwick Clothes, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1987
- McCormick v. Aabakus Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2000
- Jordan v. United Methodist Urban Ministries, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1987
- Gooden v. Coors Technical Ceramic Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2007