Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. McCook

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting compensability of bathroom injury sustained in course and scope of employment because the accident was “simply not one ‘arising out of . . . employment” (alteration in original)
• rejecting compensability of bathroom injury sustained in course and scope of employment because the accident was “simply not one ‘arising out of . . . employment” (alteration in original)
• approving the personal comfort doctrine but holding that injury sustained by claimant attending to personal comfort is not compensable if workplace provided none of the risk and did not otherwise contribute to injury
• approving the personal comfort doctrine but holding that injury sustained by claimant attending to personal comfort is not compensable if workplace provided none of the risk and did not otherwise contribute to injury
• noting “separate elements” of “in the course” and “arising out of” employment
• noting “separate elements” of “in the course” and “arising out of” employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).