Ball-Foster Glass Container Co. v. Giovanelli
Washington Supreme Court
177 P.3d 692 (2008)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Alfred Giovanelli (plaintiff) was employed by Ball-Foster Glass Container Company (St. Gobain) (defendant) as a firebrick mason. Giovanelli lived in Pennsylvania but traveled to St. Gobain’s manufacturing plants around the United States to assist with rebuilding glass furnaces. In 2001, Giovanelli worked on a project at St. Gobain’s plant in Seattle, Washington. St. Gobain paid Giovanelli a per diem rate for every day he was in Seattle, including days Giovanelli was not scheduled to be at the plant. St. Gobain also reimbursed Giovanelli’s travel expenses and paid Giovanelli for his travel time. On Sunday, August 12, 2001, Giovanelli had the day off and was walking to a concert in a nearby park. As Giovanelli crossed the street in front of his hotel, Giovanelli was hit by a car and suffered serious injuries. Giovanelli sought workers’-compensation benefits, and the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, an industrial appeals judge, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, a trial court, and the Washington Court of Appeals all concluded that Giovanelli was entitled to compensation under Washington’s workers’-compensation statute as a traveling employee. St. Gobain petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (C. Johnson, J.)
Dissent (J.M. Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
