'(concurring). I concur in the reversal of the Circuit Court and the affirmance of the action of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in disallowing compensation. The Majority Opinion contains this paragraph:
“Counsel for the appellees contend that Garlington was acting for his employer in driving Rogers to and from work. From this premise it is argued that Rogers was also in the course of his employment while waiting-in his own car beside the highway and that the onset of his asphyxiation must have taken place before he started to return to his home. We find it unnecessary to test this chain of reasoning, for there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Rogers’ transportation was not being furnished by his employer.”
I agree with the Majority that Mr. Rogers’ transportation was not being furnished by' his employer ; but there are other — and to me equally cogent — reasons why Mr. Rogers was not covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act at the time of his death.
In the first place, he had left the pick-up point and started home. Some time after 7:00 A.M. Mr. Rogers apparently realized that Mr. Garlington was not coming for him, so Mr. Rogers started back to his home. He drove down the county road about three-fourths of a mile and stopped. He was found dead in his car about 8:15. When Mr. Rogers left the pick-up point on the highway and started home in his own vehicle he ceased any semblance of coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and for that reason I think the Commission was correct in denying compensation.
Another and equally cogent reason for denying compensation is the fact that there is no evidence that Mr. Rogers received the “lethal dose” of carbon monoxide while he was on the highway waiting for Garlington to arrive. Speculation cannot take the place of proof. Mr. Rogers was in possession of sufficient faculties to turn his car around and drive toward home; and we cannot speculate as to when Mr. Rogers received the lethal dose of carbon monoxide.