Davis v. Chemical Construction Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Rose Smith, J.
This is a workmen’s compensation claim by the appellant, for an injury to his foot. The commission denied the claim upon the single ground that the claimant, at the time of his injury, had completed his day’s work at the job site and therefore (we infer) was barred by the coming and going rule. The circuit court affirmed the commission.
The facts are undisputed, so that the issue is one of law. The claimant’s employer, Chemical Construction Company, was engaged in a construction job for Monsanto Chemical Company. To reach the job site upon Monsanto’s extensive premises the construction company…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. ClarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
3Cited by11 opinions
- Andy Bailey and Barbara Bailey v. United States, Through the Department of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Hightower v. Newark Public School SystemCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1997
- Bagwell v. Falcon Jet Corp.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1983
- Hayes v. Gibson Hart Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1990
- Smith v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.