company rule in Alabama

2009It is well established that “ ‘[t]hose dealing with dangerous commodities, such as [natural] gas, must use a degree of care commensurate with the dangers involved; this degree of care is the same degree of care and vigilance which persons of skill and prudence observe under like circumstances.’ ” Sungas, Inc. v. Ferry, 450 So.2d 1085, 1088 (Ala.1984), abrogated on other grounds, Garner v. Covington County, 624 So.2d 1346 (AIa.1993) (quoting Chilton Butane Gas, Inc. v. Marcus, 289 Ala. 292, 296 , 267 So.2d 140, 143 (1972)).

2009It is well established that “ ‘[t]hose dealing with dangerous commodities, such as [natural] gas, must use a degree of care commensurate with the dangers involved; this degree of care is the same degree of care and vigilance which persons of skill and prudence observe under like circumstances.’ ” Sungas, Inc. v. Ferry, 450 So.2d 1085, 1088 (Ala.1984), abrogated on other grounds, Garner v. Covington County, 624 So.2d 1346 (AIa.1993) (quoting Chilton Butane Gas, Inc. v. Marcus, 289 Ala. 292, 296 , 267 So.2d 140, 143 (1972)).

2009It is well established that “ ‘[t]hose dealing with dangerous commodities, such as [natural] gas, must use a degree of care commensurate with the dangers involved; this degree of care is the same degree of care and vigilance which persons of skill and prudence observe under like circumstances.’ ” Sungas, Inc. v. Ferry, 450 So.2d 1085, 1088 (Ala.1984), abrogated on other grounds, Garner v. Covington County, 624 So.2d 1346 (AIa.1993) (quoting Chilton Butane Gas, Inc. v. Marcus, 289 Ala. 292, 296 , 267 So.2d 140, 143 (1972)).

2009It is well established that "`[t]hose dealing with dangerous commodities, such as [natural] gas, must use a degree of care commensurate with the dangers involved; this degree of care is the same degree of care and vigilance which persons of skill and prudence observe under like circumstances."' Sungas, Inc. v. Perry, 450 So.2d 1085, 1088 (Ala.1984), abrogated on other grounds, Garner v. Covington County, 624 So.2d 1346 (Ala.1993) (quoting Chilton Butane Gas, Inc. v. Marcus, 289 Ala. 292, 296 , 267 So.2d 140, 143 (1972)).

1995However, the Court specifically *115 finds that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this affirmative defense and that it failed to reasonably satisfy the Court that intoxication and/or willful violation of a company rule or regulation of the employer proximately caused the accident and injury made the basis of this workmen's compensation action [; see Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 344 So.2d 515 (Ala.Civ.App.1977)]." In Carroll v. Deaton, Inc., 555 So.2d 140 (Ala.1989), Carroll was injured when the car he was driving swerved off U.S. Highway 11 in Jefferson Co

1995However, the Court specifically *Page 115 finds that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this affirmative defense and that it failed to reasonably satisfy the Court that intoxication and/or willful violation of a company rule or regulation of the employer proximately caused the accident and injury made the basis of this workmen's compensation action [; see Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc. , 344 So.2d 515 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977)]." In Carroll v. Deaton, Inc. , 555 So.2d 140 (Ala. 1989), Carroll was injured when the car he was driving swerved off U.S. Highway 11 in Jef

1995However, the Court specifically *Page 115 finds that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this affirmative defense and that it failed to reasonably satisfy the Court that intoxication and/or willful violation of a company rule or regulation of the employer proximately caused the accident and injury made the basis of this workmen's compensation action [; see Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc. , 344 So.2d 515 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977)]." In Carroll v. Deaton, Inc. , 555 So.2d 140 (Ala. 1989), Carroll was injured when the car he was driving swerved off U.S. Highway 11 in Jef

1995However, the Court specifically finds that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this affirmative defense and that it failed to reasonably satisfy the Court that intoxication and/or willful violation of a company rule or regulation of the employer proximately caused the accident and injury made the basis of this workmen's compensation action [see Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc. , 344 So.2d 515 (Ala.Civ.App. 1977)]." Clearly the trial court considered all the evidence and found that it was insufficient to deny workmen's compensation to Hall, especially given the ru

1993The Supreme Court of Virginia made the following statement: “We are of the opinion that the conduct of an employee which results in garnishment is conduct connected with his work and where, as here, such conduct is recurrent, knowingly violative of a company rule, and unexcused by mitigating circumstances, it constitutes misconduct within the intendment of the statute.” 219 Va. at 612 , 249 S.E.2d at 183 (footnote omitted).

1993The Supreme Court of Virginia made the following statement: “We are of the opinion that the conduct of an employee which results in garnishment is conduct connected with his work and where, as here, such conduct is recurrent, knowingly violative of a company rule, and unexcused by mitigating circumstances, it constitutes misconduct within the intendment of the statute.” 219 Va. at 612 , 249 S.E.2d at 183 (footnote omitted).