Betty Mooneyhan v. Boyd Tunica, Inc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 1999-WC-01671-COA
BETTY MOONEYHAN
v.
BOYD TUNICA, INC. D/B/A SAM'S TOWN HOTEL AND GAMBLING
HALL, A SELF INSURED
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
07/16/1999
HON. JOHN L. HATCHER
TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
B. SEAN AKINS
CHAD J. HAMMONS
CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION
AFFIRMED
AFFIRMED-05/14/2002
6/4/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, AND IRVING, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Betty Mooneyhan appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Tunica County affirming a decision
of the Full Commission of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission denying compensation
benefits to her. In this appeal, Mooneyhan assigns error to the Commission's finding that the automobile
accident, which caused her injuries, did not arise out of the scope and course of her employment with
Boyd, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Town Hotel and Gambling Hall.
¶2. We reject Mooneyhan's argument and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3. On January 2, 1995, Mooneyhan was leaving work at Sam's Town Casino in Tunica where she was
employed as a card dealer. Just as she exited the parking lot of Sam's Town's premises to enter Highway
304, a four-lane paved public highway also known as Commerce Road, Mooneyhan was struck by an
oncoming car. As a result of the accident, she suffered some personal injuries, the nature and extent of
which are not relevant to the issue before us.
¶4. Mooneyhan filed a petition to controvert claiming that the accident and injuries arose out of the course
and scope of her employment. The parties agreed to bifurcate the hearing and allow the administrative law
judge to determine the issue of compensability based solely on the briefs and the stipulated facts.
¶5. Pursuant to the stipulated facts, the administrative law judge denied Mooneyhan's claim and concluded
that:
Ms. Mooneyhan left the zone of employment risk when she pulled out of the Sam's Town parking lot.
There were no special hazards on that part of Highway 304, or Commerce Road, and Ms.
Mooneyhan was in no more danger of accident than any other human being driving a vehicle on that
part of the road -- tourist or patron or employee of several different businesses. Her accident and
resulting injury, while regrettable, are not compensable under the Mississippi Workers' Compensation
Act, and the employer is not liable for workers' compensation benefits.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶6. Mooneyhan avers that she was forced to travel out of Sam's Town's parking lot and turn left to cross
two lanes of traffic. Mooneyhan also argues that her facts fall within the special hazards exception to the
"going and coming" rule. Mooneyhan further contends that Highway 304 is the sole access road to her
place of employment and that it is dangerous because of the high volume of traffic going to and from the
casino. In addition, Mooneyhan argues that the danger was enhanced by the higher than usual volume of
traffic during the holiday season when her accident occurred.
¶7. As a reviewing court, we entertain appeals to determine whether or not the order of the administrative
agency "was unsupported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the power of
the administrative agency to make, or violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining
party. These are the only grounds for overturning an agency action; otherwise, the agency's determination
must remain undisturbed." Mississippi Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. Chickasaw County Bd. of
Supervisors, 621 So. 2d 1211, 1215 (Miss. 1993).
¶8. Quoting from Miller Transporters v. Seay's Dependents, 350 So. 2d 689 (Miss. 1977), the
Mississippi Supreme Court, in Stepney v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc., 416 So.
2d 963 (Miss. 1982), stated the general rule with reference to going to and returning from work as follows:
[T]he general rule [is] that the hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from
their regular place of work and off the employer's premises are not incident to employment and
accidents arising therefrom are not compensable.
Id. at 964.
¶9. However, there are exceptions to the general rule. Those exceptions were also set out in Stepney as
follows:
(1) where the employer furnishes the means of transportation, or remunerates the employee; or (2)
where the employee performs some duty in connection with his employment at home; or (3) where the
employee is injured by some hazard or danger which is inherent in the conditions along the route
necessarily used by the employee; or (4) where the employer furnishes a hazardous route; or (5)
where the injury results from a hazardous parking lot furnished by the employer; or (6) where the
place of injury, although owned by one other than the employer, is in such close proximity to the
premises owned by the employer as to be, in effect, a part of such premises.
Id. (quoting Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 90, 99, 77 So. 2d 316, 318 (1955)). An
employee who claims an exception to the general rule must prove that he comes within one of the
exceptions. Aetna Fin. Co. v. Bourgoin, 252 Miss. 852, 858, 174 So. 2d 495, 497 (1965).
¶10. Mooneyhan's argument that the accident arose out of or in the scope of her employment fails because
her facts do not fit any of the exceptions. The parties stipulated that Mooneyhan was driving her own
vehicle, that Sam's Town provided neither transportation for her to and from work nor compensated her for
transportation expenses related to travel to or from work, and that the accident did not occur on Sam's
Town's premises.
¶11. Since the stipulated facts rule out the applicability of exceptions one, two, and five, we direct our
analysis to the third, fourth, and sixth exception. Mooneyhan was not injured due to any hazard or condition
inherently dangerous along Highway 304, the route utilized by her to travel to and from her employer's
premises. The accident report shows that Mooneyhan was taking a right-hand turn from the employees'
parking lot on the access road which is a four lane divided public highway. However, Mooneyhan argues
that contrary to the accident report, she was initiating a left turn. Whether Mooneyhan was turning left or
right is of no consequence because Mooneyhan was not exposed to a greater hazard than the general
public. Wallace, 223 Miss. at 102, 77 So. 2d at 319. Sam's Town did not furnish a hazardous route.
Highway 304 is owned by Tunica County and utilized not only by employees of Sam's Town, but also by
patrons of the three casinos located on that road as well as the general public at large. Finally, although
Highway 304 is in close proximity to Sam's Town's premises, Mooneyhan introduced no evidence showing
that entering or driving on Highway 304 was inherently dangerous or hazardous, nor was any evidence
introduced showing a repetitive history of auto accidents, serious or minor. For the reasons stated, this
assignment of error lacks merit; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TUNICA COUNTY IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
