Rоbert DeWayne Black, an employee of Pest Masters, Inc., while driving his employer’s automobile from his home to work, was involved in a rear-end collision with a vehicle driven by Forrest D. Callaway.
Callaway sued Blаck and Pest Masters, Inc. for personal injuries arising out of the collision, alleging the automobile was bеing operated within the scope of Black’s employment while about the business of his employer.
Defendants answered and denied liability. After discovery, Pest Masters, Inc. moved for summary judgment. A hearing was conduсted, motion was denied. Pest Masters, Inc. appeals. Held:
1. The evidence shows that as a part of the consideration of his employment, defendant Black was furnished an automobile to be used to and from work. It also shows that he was subject to call at any time, and he had full authority to drive this аutomobile any way that he wished. This evidence raised a presumption that the defendant-employеe was operating the defendant-employer’s automobile within the scope of his employmеnt at the time of the collision.
2. Defendants admit that when an employee is involved in a collision with another vehicle, while driving his master’s automobile, a presumption arises that he is within the scope of employment, and cite
Fortenberry & Sons v. Malmberg,
3. But, then defendants argue that ordinarily a servant in going to and from work is on a mission purely рersonal to himself and is not within the scope of
*124
employment, and cite
Stenger v. Mitchell,
4. But what defendants overlook in this case, and which point they have not addressed at all, is that the evidence here shows that the master furnished the automobilе to the servant for the purpose of going to and returning from work,
which was a part of the consideration of the employment.
This completely differentiates this case from those cited by defendants. For here the employer and employee both agreed thаt the employee would be paid so much in money, and would also be furnished the master’s car to use in going to work and returning from work. The master thus recognized that it was beneficial to the master to have the servant drive the car to and from work. In
American Hardware &c. Ins. Co. v. Burt,
"Where transрortation is furnished as an incident of the employment, the accident incurred during such transportation is compensable. 99 C. J. S. 834, Workmen’s Compensation, § 235. If there is a causal connection between the nature of the employment and the travel because the business of the master creates the necessity therefor, the injury is compensable. Taylor v. Meeks,
Thus, it is shown that the employment, under such circumstances, is in existence and is a benefit to the *125 employer all of the time the employee is riding to and from work in the master’s car.
5. This court hаs gone a step further in respect to motions for summary judgment. When the collision is shown to have occurred while the employee is driving the master’s car, the presumption arises that the servant is in the scoрe of his employment. But the defendant may introduce uncontradicted evidence to rebut such prеsumption. What is the posture of the motion for summary judgment then? In
Ayers v. Barney A. Smith Motors,
Thus, in summary judgment cases, because of the great burden that is placed on the movant, as is clearly shown in
Holland v. Sanfax Corp.,
Judgment affirmed.