Mercy Logging, LLC v. Johnnie L. Odom

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: J u l y 27/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2101061 Mercy Logging, LLC v. Johnnie L. Odom Appeal from Escambia C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900133) PITTMAN, In Judge. December 2009, Johnnie s e e k i n g b e n e f i t s under t h e Alabama § 25-5-1 injuries e t s e q . , A l a . Code he s u f f e r e d from L . Odom filed a complaint Workers' Compensation A c t , 1975 ("the A c t " ) , rattlesnake bites on a c c o u n t o f on h i s h a n d s , 2101061 which injuries, he a l l e g e d , arose o u t o f and i n t h e course o f his employment w i t h M e r c y L o g g i n g , LLC ("Mercy"), and r e n d e r e d him permanently that his Mercy had p a i d medical which judgment finding a Odom Odom further totaled and d e n i e d that alleged a n d none o f over $300,000. Odom's injuries the A c t . bench determining that expenses the complaint compensable under Following disabled. h i m no c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s expenses, Mercy answered were and t o t a l l y trial, that the Odom's trial injuries was p e r m a n e n t l y court were entered a compensable; and t o t a l l y disabled and a w a r d i n g h i m b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e A c t ; a n d f i n d i n g t h a t Odom h a d incurred reasonable $310,994.57, further a f o r which determined portion and that o f Odom's reimbursement. necessary Mercy was medical liable. The t r i a l expenses court f e e o f 1 5 % o f Odom's a c c r u e d and disability benefits a l s o a w a r d e d Odom's c o u n s e l on counsel had created court entitled to counsel an Odom's disability benefits reduced t o present value. an a d d i t i o n a l a t t o r n e y ' s t h e "common-fund" t h e o r y . Odom's trial The t r i a l a fund 2 of Agency had p a i d a n d was awarded attorney's future The t h e Alabama M e d i c a i d medical expenses court consisting fee concluded I t based that of the unpaid 2101061 medical expenses t h a t w e r e o w e d t o Odom's m e d i c a l p r o v i d e r s , less the deduction been paid f o r the p o r t i o n of those by t h e Alabama Medicaid expenses t h a t had Agency, from which fund Odom's c o u n s e l w a s e n t i t l e d t o a n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e o f 4 0 % . Mercy appeals, arguing ( 1 )that the t r i a l court erred i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t Odom's i n j u r i e s a r o s e o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment and ( 2 ) t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l attorney's fee a w a r d e d t o Odom's c o u n s e l w a s n o t a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e A c t o r b y the common-fund theory. Factual At was t h e time Background of the t r i a l of this a 46-year-old high-school graduate t h e l o g g i n g b u s i n e s s f o r more t h a n for Mercy's On t h e d a t e driver predecessor, mills. On t h e m o r n i n g Aaron 20 y e a r s . He b e g a n Odom w a s e m p l o y e d and d e l i v e r i n g employees, Michael o f September Raines o f a l o g g i n g crew under Perritt, the loads b i n d i n g , and 24, 2009, and paper Odom a n d t w o Nelson, who t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f crew t h e son of Mercy's 3 owner, 2009. as a l o g - t r u c k t o timber and R i l e y working i n February for Mercy; h i s duties included trimming, loads part i n May 2 0 1 1 , Odom who h a d b e e n w o r k i n g i n P e r r i t t Logging, of h i s injury, flagging other case Winston were foreman Perritt, 2101061 drove their station personal vehicles driving the labor the logging crew truck 5 : 0 0 p.m. Perritt that driving the truck. short traffic distance lane The c r e w w o r k e d at Perritt's Perritt drove instruction, north the vehicle "Trucks- on t h e r o a d around Two o r t h r e e snake and drove hundred yards sign, saw t h e s n a k e , he s w e r v e d t h e t r u c k i n an a t t e m p t just [ a logger's] they're to he h a d r e t r i e v e d t h e s e c o n d a t which sign. with of the j o b t o r e t r i e v e one o f two had been p l a c e d a s k e d why h e h a d i n t e n d e d feel t o a paved i n the of t r a f f i c . When P e r r i t t "It's where saw a d i a m o n d b a c k r a t t l e s n a k e on t h e p a v e d r o a d northerly the was a d j a c e n t turned and then the point Perritt who transported to the j o b site that t o r e t r i e v e the other beyond service t o t h e labor t r u c k f o r t h e r i d e back t o Brewton, fora south at a Perritt from Brewton. day and then, Entering-Roadway" signs warn truck The s i t e i n Monroe County, 59 m i l e s returned site f o rMercy. i n the labor M e r c y was c u t t i n g t i m b e r . until them i n B r e w t o n , where t h e y were met b y A a r o n P e r r i t t , was road and parked a threat t o run over to kill nature i t and k i l l t h e snake, to kill i t . Perritt When replied: [ s n a k e s ] because ... i n t h e w o o d s . " 4 towards Odom agreed we that 2101061 snakes are Perritt crew an stated to killed 20 t o 40 site that one i n the of s t a t e d t h a t he saw he particularly them had to (and the site job following on had in road the because i t s h e a d was he and his he had added he that on crew the kill a pointing crew had an snakes 24, area 2009, that was direction i n the would snake. considered September in that, stopped had he had a work of running over i t was his Perritt could and road and that his father truck, a habit woods. that been d r i v i n g employees the seen where of) working the to run over be day. As P e r r i t t veered the truck either Raines i t . " p a s t the snake, he or Nelson Perritt stopped why labor the had dangerous adjacent asked woods, and had snake snake, while working, w h e n he so catch the snakes. w h e n e v e r he it, in to shoot a job i n the n o t b e e n uncommon f o r h i m rattlesnakes snakes loggers i n his truck from Perritt the i t had to months e a r l i e r , several truck that encounter k e p t a gun away occupational hazard the then truck toward called o u t : "Don't k i l l steered on the the snake the side of truck the and t u r n e d o f f t h e i g n i t i o n . had stopped the truck, 5 he i t ; let's away road a from the few feet When P e r r i t t s a i d : " I don't was know. 2101061 Just being i t . ' a country I mean, I w a s n ' t g o i n g When P e r r i t t according with h i s hands. snakes, i n the past, know bitten. "pin" and t o p u t my h a n d s o n i t , b u t how he h a d c a u g h t and that he h a d n e v e r Perritt or bite but t o "leave [the a s 100 bitten a n d was Odom said, he h a d i n s t r u c t e d the stick, According been snake testified at, a s many a by a i n danger of being Nelson t o Raines r e t r i e v e d a forked h a n d e d i t t o Odom, who p l a c e d [Odom]." " i thad appeared t o him that Nelson d i d t o catch Therefore, that t h e snake w i t h a s t i c k . head. catch Odom ( w h o s t a t e d t h a t h i s f a t h e r h a d t a u g h t snake) t e s t i f i e d that not 'let's t o Odom, N e l s o n b e n t o v e r t h e s n a k e t o c a t c h i t how t o c a t c h snakes said, s t o p p e d t h e t r u c k , a l l f o u r men e x i t e d t h e t r u c k , and, him boy, I guess; they that, he t o l d t h e s t i c k behind t h e snake's when he saw t h e s n a k e Odom n o t t o c a t c h Odom i g n o r e d strike t h e snake, s n a k e ] a l o n e " b e c a u s e i t "was g o i n g toPerritt, stick to bite t h ewarning. 1 As Odom t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t h e a r P e r r i t t w a r n h i m . The t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t d i s p u t e i n f a v o r o f Odom. I t found: 1 " I t i sundisputed that P e r r i t t f i r s t intended t o run o v e r t h e s n a k e w i t h t h e t r u c k a n d k i l l i t , b u t when one o r more o f t h e e m p l o y e e s t o l d h i m t h a t they w a n t e d t o c a t c h i t , P e r r i t t v e e r e d away f r o m t h e snake, stopped t h e t r u c k , turned t h e i g n i t i o n o f f , 6 2101061 Odom g r a s p e d bucket, t h e snake behind he was r e p e a t e d l y c r e w members l a t e r was bitten on b o t h i t into drove inches later airlifted was hospitalized until for the f i r s t that i t long. Odom t o t h e h o s p i t a l i n B r e w t o n was a h a n d s . One o f t h e measured t h e snake and determined s i x feet, three Perritt i t s head and dropped t o USA M e d i c a l Center N o v e m b e r 3, 2 0 0 9 . i n Mobile a n d Odom where he Odom w a s i n a coma two weeks o f h i s h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . He remained in t h e i n t e n s i v e - c a r e u n i t f o r 3 5 o f t h e 40 d a y s t h a t h e w a s in the hospital. " f r o z e n " shoulder hands and arms. participated Hospital He experienced, and extensive among and prolonged After his discharge i n physical from January other therapy McMillan Odom Memorial M a r c h 5, 2 0 1 0 . B e f o r e and e x i t e d t h e t r u c k w i t h t h e o t h e r employees a n d w a l k e d t o t h e s n a k e , k n o w i n g t h a t s o m e o n e was g o i n g to c a t c h t h e snake. These a c t i o n s o f P e r r i t t a r e inconsistent with P e r r i t t ' s testimony that just a f e w s e c o n d s o r m i n u t e s l a t e r h e t o l d Odom n o t t o c a t c h t h e snake. The c o u r t f i n d s from t h e t e s t i m o n y and f r o m i t s o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e w i t n e s s e s t h a t A a r o n P e r r i t t n e v e r i n s t r u c t e d Odom t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t o r must n o t c a t c h t h e r a t t l e s n a k e . " 7 a swelling of his from t h e h o s p i t a l , a t D.W. 15, 2010, u n t i l problems, 2101061 engaging i n disabling physical pain therapy, i n h i s neck therapy, Odom c o m p l a i n e d and experienced he a Odom had experienced or shoulders. of pain popping During physical i n h i s neck and upper i n h i s neck. no back, Odom also c o m p l a i n e d t o h i s p e r s o n a l p h y s i c i a n t h a t p h y s i c a l t h e r a p y was causing him pain The trial i n h i s neck and upper court u l t i m a t e l y determined permanently and t o t a l l y his arms, hands, back. d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t shoulder, upper back, Mercy does n o t c h a l l e n g e on a p p e a l causation or d i s a b i l i t y determinations, the court's trial those thet r i a l was of injuries t o Because court's we h a v e medical- not s e t out with respect to issues. Our states, review of this case legal issues, s h a l l be w i t h o u t Code 1975, i s governed § 25-5-81(e)(1). of fact, review a presumption 680 S o . 2 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 8 findings o f Review by the Act, i np e r t i n e n t p a r t : " I nr e v i e w i n g the standard and other Appeals Inc., Odom and neck. f i n d i n g s and conclusions Standard ... that by the Court of proof of the finding 1996). Indus., "In reviewing of the circuit 8 Civil of correctness." A l a . See a l s o Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y (Ala. which court pure shall not 2101061 be reversed evidence." evidence i f that Ala. is finding Code 1975, "'evidence of is § supported by substantial 25-5-81(e)(2). such weight and Substantial quality that f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment reasonably proved.'" West v. 870, 871 infer the existence Ex p a r t e T r i n i t y Founders Life ( A l a . 1989), of the I n d u s . , 680 Assurance and Co. citing So. of § fact sought 2 d a t 269 Florida, to be (quoting 547 12-21-12(d), can So. Ala. 2d Code 1975). Discussion F o r an i n j u r y t o be c o m p e n s a b l e must be course caused of by "an accident [the] employment." under arising § 25-5-51, the Act, the out of and A l a . Code injury in 1975. "Upon c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e c o m p l e t e e x p r e s s i o n ' a r i s i n g out of and i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment,' and of i t s s e p a r a t e component p a r t s , i t s h o u l d be o b s e r v e d t h a t w h i l e an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f an e m p l o y m e n t u s u a l l y o c c u r s i n t h e c o u r s e o f it, such i s not invariably true. Likewise, an a c c i d e n t w h i c h o c c u r s i n t h e c o u r s e o f an e m p l o y m e n t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a r i s e o u t o f i t . The words 'arising out of' involve the idea of causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e employment and t h e i n j u r y , while the term ' i n the course of' r e l a t e s more p a r t i c u l a r l y t o t h e t i m e , p l a c e and c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which the i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . The p h r a s e s a r e not synonymous; where b o t h a r e u s e d c o n j u n c t i v e l y a d o u b l e c o n d i t i o n has been imposed, and b o t h terms must be s a t i s f i e d i n o r d e r t o b r i n g a c a s e w i t h i n 9 the 2101061 the a c t . 58 Am. J u r . 7 1 7 . G e n e r a l l y , an i n j u r y a r i s e s o u t o f an e m p l o y m e n t o n l y when t h e r e i s a causal c o n n e c t i o n between the injury and t h e c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h t h e work i s r e q u i r e d t o be performed." Wooten v. Roden, (1954). test We w i l l 260 A l a . 6 0 6 , 6 1 0 , 71 So. 2d 802, 805-06 address the second p a r t of the c o m p e n s a b i l i t y first. A. " I n the Course Of" Employment "An i n j u r y t o a n e m p l o y e e a r i s e s i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t when i t o c c u r s [ ] w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t , a t a p l a c e w h e r e h e may r e a s o n a b l y be a n d w h i l e he i s r e a s o n a b l y f u l f i l l i n g t h e d u t i e s of h i s employment o r engaged i n d o i n g something incident to i t . " C a r r a w a y M e t h o d i s t Hosp. v. P i t t s , 2d 96, 101 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . that from The e v i d e n c e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e Mercy p r o v i d e d i t s employees w i t h work Perritt to 2 5 6 A l a . 6 6 5 , 6 7 1 , 57 S o . pursuant testified to an implied transportation contractual while a worker i s traveling Although on a p u b l i c g o i n g t o or coming from work g e n e r a l l y f a l l of the Drilling employment," Co., 61 So. McDaniel 3d v. travel "accidents road while outside the course Helmerich 1091, 1093 t o and obligation; t h a t Mercy c o n s i d e r e d t h e employees' and from work t o be o n - t h e - j o b t i m e . occurring indicates (Ala. & Payne C i v . App. Int'l 2010) ( c i t i n g T u r n e r v . Drummond C o . , 3 4 9 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 , 603 ( A l a . C i v . 10 2101061 App. 1977)), rule" when there i s an e x c e p t i o n t h e employer furnishes t o the "going and coming transportation t o and from w o r k p u r s u a n t t o a n i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n , s e e Ammons v. McClendon, 263 A l a . 6 5 1 , 6 5 2 , 83 S o . 2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 0 Therefore, Odom's a c c i d e n t employment (on t h e d r i v e b a c k t o B r e w t o n a f t e r work) a n d i n a place where he might site r e a s o n a b l y be theperiod (on t h e r o a d of h i s from t h e j o b t o Brewton). The catch more d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n a duties rattlesnake, of Odom h i s employment incident to i t . " at occurred within (1955). i swhether, was or i n attempting t o "reasonably engaged fulfilling i n doing C a r r a w a y M e t h o d i s t Hosp. v. P i t t s , 6 7 1 , 57 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 1 . "[T]he courts the something 256 A l a . have d e c i d e d t h a t t h e c o u r s e o f t h e employment i sn o t l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o t h e s e r v i c e s for which expressly A. Moore, (1998). t h e employee or implicitly Alabama was r e t a i n e d , authorized Workers' by t h e employer." Compensation § any a c t 1 Terry 1 1 : 5 0 a t 417 2 The implied-consent "horseplay." 2 but includes rationale "[T]the course o f t h e employment activities impliedly authorized by 11 also applies includes a l l t h e employer to 2101061 Because snake pulled catch Odom's and k i l l foreman abandoned i tand, i n s t e a d , i t can be inferred consented t o the snake-catching Wildlife Dep't v. T i d w e l l , In Tidwell, a large wardens, the the labor state game rattlesnake "'[T]urn that activity. 7 3 5 S.W.2d hunter i n t o custody, and, w h i l e saw stopped t o run over the t r u c k and o f f t h e road a f t e r two employees e x p r e s s e d a d e s i r e t o t h e snake, 1987). h i s plan 629, 631-32 wardens impliedly Cf. State took an Parks & (Tex. App. intoxicated transporting him t o j a i l , on t h e h i g h w a y . around, Mercy I ' l l catch that w a r d e n who w a s d r i v i n g t h e c a r " t u r n e d they The h u n t e r told the snake,'" whereupon thevehicle around through i t s acquiescence w i t h f u l l knowledge. Thus, i t appears t h a t i n Alabama l a w even an i n s t i g a t o r o r participant [ i n horseplay] i s entitled to c o m p e n s a t i o n i f t h e h o r s e p l a y was a r e g u l a r i n c i d e n t of t h e employment, o f which t h e employer h a d a c t u a l or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e , as d i s t i n g u i s h e d from an i s o l a t e d a c t , o r , i f t h e employee can prove t h a t t h e employer i m p l i e d l y consented t o t h e a c t i v i t y even the first time i t took place since i t was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e employment." Moore, Alabama Workers' Compensation, § 11:71 a t 443-44 (emphasis added; f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e snake-catching activity c a n be considered analogous to "horseplay," we n o t e t h a t t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c a t c h i n g snakes, as opposed t o k i l l i n g s n a k e s , was a regular incident o f t h e employment or that Mercy ever i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t e d t o s u c h a c t i v i t y b e f o r e t h e d a y o f Odom's inj ury. 12 2101061 and at headed i tback i n t h e d i r e c t i o n 630. of the snake." The T e x a s a p p e l l a t e c o u r t 735 S.W.2d stated: " T h e r e was e v i d e n c e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t [ t h e w a r d e n ] t u r n e d t h e c a r a r o u n d w h e n [ t h e h u n t e r ] made t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t he w o u l d c a t c h t h e s n a k e . [The w a r d e n ] t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o p a r k t h e c a r on t h e e d g e of t h e road w i t h i n twenty f e e t of t h e snake. This c r e a t e d a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h i t c o u l d be i n f e r r e d t h a t [ t h e warden] i n h i s s u p e r v i s o r y c a p a c i t y ( [ t h e h u n t e r ] b e i n g h i s p r i s o n e r ) was g o i n g b a c k f o r t h e purpose of a l l o w i n g [the hunter] t o catch t h e snake. ... I t c o u l d be i n f e r r e d that [the warden's] parking of the v e h i c l e at that l o c a t i o n not only enabled [ t h e h u n t e r ] t o c a t c h t h e s n a k e , b u t was a n encouragement and t a c i t approval of [the hunter's] action." Id. a t 631-32. The implied-consent requirement that, "although a u t h o r i z e d an a c t i v i t y , indirect become economic part of r a t i o n a l e i s , however, l i m i t e d by t h e C o m p e n s a t i o n § 11:50 a t 421 injury for sustained himself employer -- -- from the employment." Co. , 2 6 1 A l a . 3 6 6 , 74 (citing S o . 2 d 474 activity nevertheless activity, Moore, implicitly (1954)) 13 Alabama not Workers' (holding was m a k i n g customarily d i d not i t does F o s t e r v. C o n t i n e n t a l G i n b y a n e m p l o y e e who an have i f t h e e m p l o y e r r e c e i v e s no d i r e c t o r benefit the t h e e m p l o y e r may occur that a lamp permitted i n the an stand by the course of 2101061 employment because t h e employer from t h e employee's derived no economic benefit activity). "The courts have not devised a clear test to distinguish indirectly beneficial activities i n t e n d e d t o be w i t h i n t h e [ i n d i r e c t - b e n e f i t ] t h e o r y , from purely remote ones outside the doctrine. H o w e v e r , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e deems t h e a c t i n d i r e c t l y b e n e f i c i a l t o h i s o r h e r employer i s n o t of i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t t o f a s t e n l i a b i l i t y upon t h e company. Employees may devise a n y number o f i n g e n i o u s o r c r e a t i v e a r g u m e n t s t o p r o v e how t h e i r a c t i v i t y has b e n e f i t e d t h e i r employer, b u t unless the activity actually furthers the economic objectives of t h e employer, i t will n o t be considered work-related." Moore, Alabama W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n § 11:51 a t 423 (footnotes omitted). Odom's maintains counsel argued to the trial (whether by catching of objectives of Mercy because to i n t h e woods, a n d , he p o i n t e d loggers was direction September several 24, i t or afternoon working and now on a p p e a l t h a t r e m o v i n g t h e p o i s o n o u s s n a k e f r o m t h e roadway roadway court yards where t h e f o l l o w i n g morning. snake-catching furthered i t ) on t h e the economic snakes a r e an o c c u p a t i o n a l hundred of) the job site 2009, killing o u t , t h e s n a k e on t h e from (and f a c i n g t h e Mercy loggers The s u g g e s t i o n i n the would that a c t i v i t y was t a n t a m o u n t t o s a f e g u a r d i n g 14 hazard be Odom's the job 2101061 site assumes t h a t , roadway, job unless i t was caught and t h e same s n a k e w o u l d l i k e l y site 12 hours later when q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r an a c t i v i t y the removed h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t on t h e logging crew Ct. rule. App. 1964) accrued to dealership, community tourism the v. Darby, that employer, any the 382 good will owner of along the r i v e r that an 76 may (Mo. have automobile aimed at promoting r e c r e a t i o n and remote, and s t a t i n g t h a t benefit the i n d i r e c t - participation in a where t h e d e a l e r s h i p applied We speculative S.W.2d 7 0 , as a r e s u l t o f h i s employee's " c a n n o t be indirect (holding boat-dock project speculative rule Cf. E l l i o t t arrived. that produces such a and remote b e n e f i t t o t h e employer f a l l s w i t h i n benefit from the without was and located was the i n d i r e c t - b e n e f i t limitation. Eventually the t o t h e e m p l o y e r becomes so t e n u o u s as t o be imperceptible."). Further, to posit that, f o r purposes of the economic- benefit rule, catching a p o i s o n o u s s n a k e i s no d i f f e r e n t f r o m killing the snake because e i t h e r a c t i o n r e s u l t s i n the removal of a p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d from the employer's j o b s i t e the economic-benefit rule on i t s head. M e r c y ' s j o b s i t e was p o t e n t i a l l y b e n e f i t e d 15 Even i s to turn assuming that as a c o n s e q u e n c e of 2101061 Odom's r i d d i n g t h e a r e a o f one d a n g e r o u s s n a k e , t h a t p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t appears t o be outweighed by t h e p o t e n t i a l d e t r i m e n t Mercy the that could services seriously In (and d i d , of a i n this valued injured while employee trying an e a r l y A l a b a m a case) case who to catch r e s u l t from might to losing have been t h e snake. o u r supreme c o u r t stated: " [ T ] t h e e f f e c t o f w e l l - c o n s i d e r e d c a s e s i s t h a t an employee does n o t step a s i d e from h i s employment, and i s w i t h o u t t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e , when he i s d o i n g a r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y a c t a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e t o t h e end t h a t t h e work and b u s i n e s s o f t h e e m p l o y e r may b e p r o p e r l y c o n d u c t e d o r p r e s e r v e d , o r t h e s a f e t y a n d h e a l t h o f t h e human a n d p h y s i c a l a g e n c i e s engaged t h e r e i n be c o n s e r v e d , and t h e ways, works, machinery, or p l a n t safeguarded. In such a temporary deviation by t h e employee from the o r i g i n a l employment o r a t e m p o r a r y d e p a r t u r e by h i m f r o m h i s u s u a l v o c a t i o n , i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f some w o r k f o r t h e e m p l o y e r , he i s y e t a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e course o f h i s employment." Ex parte (1922) Majestic (emphasis sustained when Coal C o . , 208 A l a . added) he p u l l e d (holding loose 8 6 , 8 8 , 93 S o . 7 2 8 , 7 2 9 that rock from miner's the entrance c o a l mine, o c c u r r e d " i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment," the had never facts that he been that h i s job duties d i d not include that task, other employees for such work). to a despite i n s t r u c t e d t o remove t h e rock, had customarily injury, performed and t h a t and had been paid U n l i k e t h e e m p l o y e e i n M a j e s t i c C o a l , who saw 16 2101061 an imminently for dangerous c o n d i t i o n and attempted the safety of himself fellow when t h e y left were traveling and chose presented the security Odom a n d h i s "a r e a s o n a b l y necessary of the v e h i c l e i n which to confront a poisonous they snake no i m m i n e n t t h r e a t t o them o r t o a n y o t h e r that employee Mercy. Although the employees, employees were n o t p e r f o r m i n g act" of and other t o abate i t trial activity we e n t e r t a i n some d o u b t a b o u t t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f court's occurred assume, w i t h o u t address conclusion that " i n the course Odom's snake-catching o f " h i s e m p l o y m e n t , we d e c i d i n g , that i t d i d so occur whether that activity "arose will and proceed t o out of" Odom's employment. B. "Arising "Whether an Out o f " Employment accidental injury 'arises out of' the c l a i m a n t ' s employment i s b a s i c a l l y a q u e s t i o n o f whether there i s a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c l a i m a n t ' s performance o f his or her duties as Ex p a r t e Trinity injury." causation refers to determine i f the risk an employee Indus., the standard causing 17 and the complained-of 680 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 6 . used by the injury "Legal the courts i s to sufficiently 2101061 related t o t h e employment hazard." Moore, Alabama Workers' (emphasis added). legal t o be cause considered an Compensation occupational § 10:2 a t 315 "[T]he employment s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t h e of the injury f o r workers' compensation purposes o n l y when t h e i n j u r y r e s u l t s f r o m an o c c u p a t i o n a l r i s k . " § 10:5 a t 318 (emphasis Young v. M u t u a l Civ. App. Sav. L i f e 1989) c h a r a c t e r o f ... In Young, break under when he a that an injury arises salesman who was cases, out taking t r e e on t h e s i d e o f t h e r o a d into a ditch blackberries i n a nearby occurred " i n on h i s way field. the This course employment, b u t t h a t i t d i d n o t " a r i s e employment, other of employment")). fell accident among "from any r i s k o r danger i n c i d e n t a l t o traveling a shade citing, I n s . C o . , 5 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 4 , 26 ( A l a . (stating employment i fi t a r i s e s the added; Id., to look court of" a was lunch injured a t some held the that the salesman's out o f " the salesman's because " [ t ] h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s l i p p i n g and f a l l i n g i n t o a roadside ditch i s not a hazard peculiar to t r a v e l i n g salesmen. Clearly the claimant, although p r i m a r i l y c a r r y i n g on h i s e m p l o y e r ' s b u s i n e s s , i . e . , he continued on h i s r o u t e after the f a l l , had d e p a r t e d o n h i s own p e r s o n a l e n t e r p r i s e a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y . " 18 ripe 2101061 541 So. 2 d a t 26-27 216 Minn. The findings (citing Gumbrill 3 5 1 , 13 N.W.2d 16 trial court's v. General Motors Corp., (1944)). judgment contains the following of fact: "11. A a r o n P e r r i t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t r a t t l e s n a k e s are an o c c u p a t i o n a l h a z a r d , t h r e a t , a n d danger t o h i m a n d t h e o t h e r w o r k e r s i n h i s l o g g i n g c r e w when w o r k i n g i n t h e w o o d s . Odom a g r e e s w i t h P e r r i t t t h a t r a t t l e s n a k e s a r e a hazard, t h r e a t and danger t o him w h i l e he worked f o r Mercy. I t i s the policy of Mercy t o remove r a t t l e s n a k e s from i t s employees' work e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d i n t h e p a s t i t has removed r a t t l e s n a k e s b y k i l l i n g them. P r i o r t o September 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , A a r o n P e r r i t t h a s k i l l e d many s n a k e s w h i l e working f o r Mercy, i n c l u d i n g running over snakes w i t h Mercy's l a b o r t r u c k while l e a v i n g j o b s i t e s i n the woods. In a d d i t i o n , Winston P e r r i t t and other e m p l o y e e s o f M e r c y have k i l l e d s n a k e s on o r n e a r Mercy's j o b s i t e s . W i n s t o n P e r r i t t keeps a shotgun in h i s truck to kill snakes w h i l e w o r k i n g . An i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e S e p t e m b e r 24, 2009, when Aaron Perritt was l e a v i n g a job site at the conclusion o f t h e work day and s t o p p e d h i s l a b o r truck i n t h e road and allowed Raines t o k i l l a r a t t l e s n a k e . Aaron P e r r i t t t e s t i f i e d that snakes c r a w l i n g on t h e r o a d w a y t o w a r d a M e r c y j o b s i t e i n the near v i c i n i t y o f t h e j o b s i t e a r e p o t e n t i a l l y more d a n g e r o u s t o M e r c y e m p l o y e e s t h a n s n a k e s n o t l o c a t e d near t h e j o b s i t e . Aaron P e r r i t t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he k i l l s rattlesnakes rather than catching them, b u t he t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h e t h e r t h e y a r e k i l l e d or c a u g h t , t h e i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t o remove them t o e l i m i n a t e t h e t h r e a t t h a t t h e y pose t o t h e employees." (Emphasis added.) 19 2101061 The that foregoing snakes are present conducting trial an the t o Mercy's logging i n j u r y , however, operations f i n d i n g s focus on t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l employees operations when t h e e m p l o y e e s i n t h e woods. Odom's d i d n o t o c c u r w h i l e h e was c o n d u c t i n g o r w h i l e he was i n t h e w o o d s . caused by h i s employment. employer's counsel, Odom logging Odom a c k n o w l e d g e d a t t h a t c a t c h i n g a r a t t l e s n a k e on a p u b l i c roadway activity hazard During was n o t questioning by testified: "Q. Now, i f [ N e l s o n o r R a i n e s ] w a n t e d t o c a t c h a s n a k e , why [were] you i n v o l v e d i n c a t c h i n g t h e snake? "A. W e l l , we g u e s s . ... a l l kind o f g o t caught up i n t h a t , I "Q. Now w h a t ' s t h e p u r p o s e o f c a t c h i n g o f a s n a k e ? Why w o u l d y o u w a n t t o c a t c h i t a s o p p o s e d t o k i l l it? "A. Well, that's "Q. Okay. "A. Kind a good question, I guess. o f a dumb t h i n g . "Q. O k a y . D i d c a t c h i n g a s n a k e h a v e a n y t h i n g w i t h g e t t i n g y o u r j o b done a t Mercy L o g g i n g ? "A. No, "Q. T h a t was i t ? "A. t o do s i r . wasn't No, s i r . going I wish t o p u t timber we w o u l d h a v e 20 on t h e t r u c k , just kept going. 2101061 "Q. O k a y . I t w a s n ' t k e e p i n g y ' a l l f r o m d o i n g your work, b e c a u s e y ' a l l were a l r e a d y i n t h e t r u c k on t h e b l a c k t o p . Y ' a l l c o u l d have j u s t k e p t on g o i n g . "A. Y e s , s i r . We c o u l d h a v e , b u t we "Q. We s t o p p e d . A n y b o d y f o r c e truck? stopped. you t o g e t o u t o ft h e "A. N o , s i r . ... " Odom f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d : "Q. O k a y . Was i t p a r t t h a t snake? o f [your] jobduties t o catch "A. N o , s i r . "Q. Was t h a t s n a k e i n a n y w a y i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h y o u r ability t o perform your j o b d u t i e s [of] cutting t i m b e r a n d l o a d i n g up a n d d r i v i n g t o t h e p a p e r m i l l or what have you? "A. N o , s i r . I w i s h hadn't stopped. we w o u l d h a v e "Q. Was t h e r e a n y b u s i n e s s catch t h a t snake? "A. N o t t h a t I know of." reason, just went work on a n d reason t o 3 Odom l a t e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t o n e m i g h t w a n t t o c a t c h a snake t o keep i t a l i v e so t h a t i t c o u l d be e a t e n . Perritt t e s t i f i e d t h a t Nelson had skinned t h e snake t h a t had b i t t e n Odom, a n d N e l s o n " s t i l l h a [ d ] t h e h i d e . " P e r r i t t said that h e , N e l s o n , a n d R a i n e s " w e r e g o i n g t o make [Odom] a b e l t b u t never d i d g e t around t o i t . " 3 21 2101061 The trial conclusions court's judgment of law concerning contains the following the compensability o f Odom's injuries: "20. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t r a t t l e s n a k e s w e r e a n o c c u p a t i o n a l h a z a r d t o Odom a n d o t h e r e m p l o y e e s o f Mercy w h i l e employed by and working f o rMercy, and Odom's e m p l o y m e n t w i t h M e r c y c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e hazard of a rattlesnake bite and m a t e r i a l l y i n c r e a s e d Odom's r i s k o f e x p o s u r e t o a r a t t l e s n a k e bite. ... T h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t Odom w a s b i t t e n b y the r a t t l e s n a k e a t a time and a t or near a p l a c e and w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g an a c t i v i t y f o r w h i c h he was h i r e d by Mercy, t h a t he c a u g h t t h e r a t t l e s n a k e w i t h t h e express or i m p l i c i t a u t h o r i z a t i o n and acquiescence of Mercy, and t h a t Mercy and i t s employees r e c e i v e d a n e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t b y Odom's a c t i v i t y i n r e m o v i n g t h e r a t t l e s n a k e f r o m o r n e a r M e r c y ' s j o b s i t e . The Court finds that the personal injuries and d i s a b i l i t y s u f f e r e d b y Odom a r o s e o u t o f a n d i n t h e course o f h i s employment w i t h Mercy." The foregoing determinations actually portion of the compensability whether Odom's accident employment, n o t w i t h employment. the course order 247 Ala. occurred whether that only i s concerned " i n t h e course the accident "arose that with o f "h i s out o f " h i s " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a n a c c i d e n t may o c c u r i n o f ... e m p l o y m e n t t o be concurring test address compensable incidents." without arising the accident Bell must v. Tennessee C o a l , 3 9 4 , 3 9 6 , 24 S o . 2 d 4 4 3 , 444 22 (1945). out of i t . In have Iron, t h e two & R.R., 2101061 The t r i a l court's determinations t h a t r a t t l e s n a k e s a r e an o c c u p a t i o n a l h a z a r d t o l o g g e r s a n d t h a t Odom's e m p l o y m e n t w i t h Mercy "materially rattlesnake bite" presented by t h i s risk the increased of being do not bitten actually voluntarily address the whether by a snake d u r i n g suffered left risk case, namely: woods h a d a n y c a u s a t i v e Odom Odom's relation on of exposure material Odom's logging to a question occupational operations i n t o t h e snake b i t e September 24, 2009, when that he t h e s a f e t y o f t h e v e h i c l e i n w h i c h h e was a p a s s e n g e r a n d a t t e m p t e d t o c a t c h a s n a k e t h a t was l y i n g on t h e roadway. snake on otherwise which That q u e s t i o n must be answered i n t h e n e g a t i v e . the roadway posed t o Odom s o l o n g he was r i d i n g ; once no risk -- [his] was p e r s o n a l employment he v o l u n t a r i l y exited the vehicle Alabama Dallas M f g . Co. v . Kennemer, (1942)) Workers' considered Moore, 520 (stating t h a t c a u s e d Odom's t o him and not " s u f f i c i e n t l y t o be related to an o c c u p a t i o n a l Compensation that or as he r e m a i n e d i n t h e v e h i c l e i n and a t t e m p t e d t o c a t c h t h e snake, t h e r i s k injury occupational The § hazard." 10:2 a t 315 (citing 243 A l a . 42, 44, 8 So. 2 d 5 1 9 , "[t]he question [the] employment s p e c i a l l y s u b j e c t e d 23 always i s whether [the i n j u r e d employee] t o 2101061 a h a z a r d o f [the] s o r t [that caused t h a t Odom e n c o u n t e r e d to loggers; motorist who, after from snake. See U n i o n having Camp C o r p . 270 So. 2 d 108, 111-12 was s u b j e c t e d on h i s t r i p risk arising a snake t h e hours by any p a s s i n g on t h e roadway, and undertakes t o catch the v. Blackmon (1972) riding be s h a r e d 289 A l a . 635, 639, ("The r i s k t o w h i c h to obtain a soft i n an a u t o m o b i l e , from h i s employment by Union he was w i t h i n recall, spied h i s or her vehicle by anyone The h a z a r d on S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2009, was n o t p e c u l i a r i t was one t h a t w o u l d alights shared the injury]"). t h e employee d r i n k was a risk a n d i t was n o t a Camp. T h e f a c t that o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t , a n d was s u b j e c t t o i s not controlling. Such f a c t or facts do n o t change t h e n e c e s s a r y c o n c l u s i o n t h a t B l a c k m o n ' s employment i n no w i s e exposed v. him t o the r i s k Mutual Sav. L i f e possibility not claimant, departed peculiar although business, I n s . Co., 541 of slipping a hazard causing his fatal and f a l l i n g to traveling primarily So. into injuries."); Young 2d ("The a t 26-27 a roadside ditch i s salesmen. carrying on his i . e . , h e c o n t i n u e d on h i s r o u t e a f t e r o n h i s own p e r s o n a l enterprise injury."). 24 Clearly the employer's the f a l l , had a t t h e time of the 2101061 Conclusion Because Odom's employment w i t h that Mercy, h i sinjuries under accident d i d not the t r i a l court were compensable, arise erred judgment the cause of the Escambia i s remanded Circuit f o r entry of h i s i n determining i n awarding him b e n e f i t s t h e A c t , and i n awarding h i s counsel The out attorney's fees. Court i s reversed, o f a judgment i n favor and of Mercy. R E V E R S E D AND Thompson, Bryan REMANDED. P . J . , a n d Thomas, and Moore, J . ,concur. J J . , concur writings. 25 i n the result, without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.