Ricky Wilson Jr. v. Ricky Wilson, Jr.

Employee's and lessee of the 200 acre property where employee planned to deer hunt on December 13, 2008; and (3) Frederick White (Mr. White), the consultant and manager of the mobile home dealership, Iseman Homes, whom employee said he was going to meet on December 13, 2008.

The alleged work-related aspect of employee's December 13, 2008, trip is largely based on communications employee had with Mr. White. Mr. White is the consultant and manager of Iseman Homes, a mobile home dealer located in Chillicothe, Missouri. Mr. White was interested in possibly hiring employee for several jobs, but wanted to meet in-person with him before formally extending the offer. Mr. White testified that he did not believe he discussed with employee where the homes, that he was considering hiring employee for, were to be delivered and set up. Mr. White testified that he and employee had set up several appointments to discuss employee possibly transporting and setting up homes, but that employee had not kept the appointments nor called to cancel them with the exception of one.

Mr. White testified that on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, he spoke with employee and employee apologized for missing their previously scheduled appointments. Mr. White testified that he understood because the weather had been bad around that time period. Mr. White told employee that he had an open invitation to meet with him either before 8:00 a.m. on Friday, December 12, 2008, or before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, December 13, 2008. Employee expressed to Mr. White that he planned to meet with him in Chillicothe on either that Friday or Saturday morning.

Mr. Francis had previously worked with employee as an escort driver. Mr. Francis last worked for employee in October 2008. Mr. Francis owns and lives with his wife Mary on a 20 acre property at 19759 County Road 130, a gravel road just west of Hwy Z near Bogard, Missouri. Mr. Francis and his wife also lease a 200 acre property that is located approximately one-half mile further west down County Road 130 from their place.

Mr. Francis had previously offered to let employee hunt deer on his 200 acre property. Employee took Mr. Francis up on his offer and came to deer hunt in November 2008, the month before the accident, which was the first and only other occasion that employee had been to the Francis residence or their 200 acre property down the road.

Mr. Francis testified that employee called him on Thursday, December 11, 2008, and asked if he could hunt on the Francis property on December 13, 2008. Mr. Francis told employee that he could hunt on that day and employee told Mr. Francis that he would call him the next day to confirm. Mr. Francis testified that employee called him in the evening on Friday, December 12, 2008, and confirmed that he was coming out to hunt on Mr. Francis' 200 acre property the following morning. During the same telephone conversation, employee told Mr. Francis that he was supposed to meet with Mr. White from Iseman Homes on that Saturday as well. Mr. Francis did not know for sure, but thought that employee told him that his meeting with Mr. White was to take place at noon on that Saturday.

Ms. Morris lives with employee in Independence, Missouri. Ms. Morris testified that on Thursday evening, December 11, 2008, employee told her that he was going to deer hunt

on Mr. Francis' 200 acre property on December 13, 2008. During this conversation, employee also told Ms. Morris that he had a meeting with Mr. White of Iseman Homes on that Saturday. The next evening, Friday, December 12, 2008, Ms. Morris testified that employee told her son that he could not go hunting with employee the next day "because he also had business to tend to."

Ms. Morris testified that employee left their home at approximately 4:45 a.m. on Saturday, December 13, 2008. Ms. Morris testified that before employee left, they discussed what he was going to do that day. During that conversation, employee told Ms. Morris he was going to go hunting, meet with Mr. White, and also ask Mr. Francis to be his escort driver. Ms. Morris did not know in what order employee planned on doing the aforementioned. Ms. Morris also did not know why employee would ask Mr. Francis to be an escort driver when Mr. Francis had already been working with employee before on numerous occasions as an escort driver.

Mr. Francis testified that in the dark hours on the Saturday morning before the accident, employee called him and woke him up at 5:05 a.m. to tell him he was lost. When employee called he had already left his home in Independence, Missouri and was on his way to Mr. Francis' property. Employee explained that his directions had flown out of his truck's window. When employee called at 5:05 a.m., he told Mr. Francis that he had made it to Hwy KK. Mr. Francis told employee to follow Hwy KK and continue straight onto Hwy C. Mr. Francis then told employee that he would need to turn left off of Hwy C on to Hwy Z. He further explained to employee how to get to the gravel road that his property is on, County Road 130. Mr. Francis then went back to sleep.

Employee called Mr. Francis again at 5:20 a.m. asking for directions to the Francis property where he was going to hunt. Mr. Francis stated that this was a fairly short conversation and that he just reiterated his previous directions.

Employee called Mr. Francis again at 5:33 a.m. and Mr. Francis again gave him directions and told employee to go down Hwy Z and around the first part of the S curve that is past the Pin Oak Shooting Range, and then shoot straight off onto County Road 130 going west. Mr. Francis believed employee would recognize where he was once he got on County Road 130 because employee had just been there hunting the previous month.

Employee's last call to Mr. Francis that morning was at 5:40 a.m. Employee indicated to Mr. Francis that he had turned right instead of left off of Hwy Z onto County Road 130 and had taken that road east until it intersected with another blacktop highway. Employee also expressed concern that he was running out of gas. Mr. Francis told employee that he had made a wrong turn and had evidently gone east all the way to Hwy 65. Mr. Francis told employee that he needed to turn around and come back. Mr. Francis told employee that he needed to continue west on County Road 130 until it intersected with Hwy Z and to "shoot straight off of it" back onto County Road 130. Employee told Mr. Francis that he thought he was running out of gas. Mr. Francis told employee that he would come out looking for him in case he ran out of gas and then Mr. Francis heard a loud noise on employee's end of the phone. The loud noise, which occurred at approximately 5:40 a.m., was the last thing Mr. Francis heard from employee's end of the phone.

Improvee: Ricky D. Wilson, Jr.

Mr. Francis went out looking for employee and at approximately 8:00 a.m. on December 13, 2008, he found employee in his overturned truck in a creek below a bridge on County Road 130. When employee was found, he was dressed in full camouflage and had his deer rifle in his truck.

The parties have stipulated that employee is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the December 13, 2008, accident.

Mr. Francis testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the only business connection with employee's trip that day was his scheduled meeting with Mr. White. Employee did not relate to Mr. Francis that he wished to speak with Mr. Francis about business on that Saturday, December 13, 2008.

In order for an injury to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the course of employment. Bivins v. St. John's Regional Health Center, 272 S.W.3d 446, 451 (Mo. App. 2008). Section 287.020.3(2) RSMo provides:

An injury shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment only if:

(a) It is reasonably apparent, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that the accident is the prevailing factor in causing the injury; and

(b) It does not come from a hazard or risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life.

Employee argues that the injury is compensable under the "dual purpose doctrine." The dual purpose doctrine is similar to the "mutual benefit doctrine" which requires only that the injury to the employee must have occurred during the performance of an act for the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee where some advantage to the employer resulted from the employee's conduct. Graham v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 117 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Mo. App. 2003). Where travel is involved, the mutual benefit exception is known as the dual purpose doctrine because the work of the employee creates a necessity for travel even though the employee may be serving some purpose of his own. Medrano v. Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Mo. App. 2005).

Employee argues that the facts of this case fall within the purview of the dual purpose doctrine because employee's accident occurred when he was on his way to Mr. Francis' place