Howell v. Kash & Karry
South Carolina Supreme Court
214 S.E.2d 821, 264 S.C. 298 (1975)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
James Howell (plaintiff) worked for Kash & Karry (defendant), a large supermarket, as a stockboy and checking clerk. Kash & Karry had two parking lots, both across the street from the store. To get to Kash & Karry, customers had to use a public sidewalk in front of the store. On December 30, 1971, Howell was instructed to collect the shopping carts from a Kash & Karry parking lot. As Howell was returning to the store, he saw two small boys steal a purse from Clara Belk, who was walking on the public sidewalk approaching a Kash & Karry parking lot. Belk was with her sister, and they had parked in a Kash & Karry parking lot. Howell chased the boys and injured himself when he ran into a fence. Belk and her sister were unable to purchase anything from Kash & Karry because all their money to shop had been in the stolen purse. Howell’s regular duties did not involve the protection of the store or its customers, but at the time of the incident, purse snatching by juveniles was prevalent. Howell filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission allowed the claim, and the circuit court affirmed. Kash & Karry appealed, arguing that Howell’s injury did not arise out of or occur within the course of his employment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bussey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.