Lane v. Hartson-Kennedy Cabinet Top Co.
| Docket Number: | 2006-WC-02137-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Workers’ compensation - Traveling employee - Going and coming rule Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-30-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: AFFIRMED ORDER OF MISSISSIPPI WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION DENYING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO APPELLANT Case Number: A2401-2005-291 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | HOWARD LANE |
JAMES KENNETH WETZEL,
MATTHEW GORDON LYONS |
|
|
| Appellee: | HARTSON-KENNEDY CABINET TOP COMPANY, INC. AND ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY | STEPHANIE ANNE TAYLOR | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Workers’ compensation - Traveling employee - Going and coming rule |
| Summary of the Facts: | Howard Lane suffered serious injuries as a result of an automobile collision with a drunk driver. The collision occurred several miles away from Hartson-Kennedy Cabinet Top Co., Inc., while Lane, a truck driver for H.K., was in his personal vehicle on his way home from H.K. to take a shower. Lane filed a petition to controvert, alleging that he suffered a work related accident from the collision. H.K. denied compensation. The administrative law judge found that Lane was not within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. Therefore, he found that Lane was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Commission affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge. Lane appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Lane appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lane argues that the Commission erred when it found that he was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was struck by a drunk driver. Injuries received while going to and coming from a job are generally not compensable under workers’ compensation. However, traveling employees are exempted from this rule. Traveling employees are employees whose work takes them away from the employer’s premises and are held to be within the course of their employment continuously during the trip, except when a distinct departure on a personal errand is shown. In this case, Lane and H.K. agree that while Lane is on a delivery route, he is a traveling employee. After Lane returned to H.K., he would go home in his personal vehicle, without remuneration for the trip home. In addition, the eighteen-wheeler remained parked at H.K. After Lane had completed his delivery route, Lane never drove it home. On this particular occasion, Lane had completed his first delivery route, had gone off duty, and then left H.K. in his personal vehicle. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s decision that Lane was not a traveling employee at the time of the accident. However, that does not necessarily mean that he was outside the scope of his employment when he drove home. His travel to and from his home would be considered outside the scope of his employment unless he met at least one of several exceptions to the general rule which include: where the employer furnishes the means of transportation, or remunerates the employee; where the employee performs some duty in connection with his employment at home; where the employee is injured by some hazard or danger which is inherent in the conditions along the route necessarily used by the employee; where the employer furnishes a hazardous route; where the injury results from a hazardous parking lot furnished by the employer; where the place of injury, although owned by one other than the employer, is in such close proximity to the premises owned by the employer as to be, in effect, a part of such premises; or when the employee is on a special mission or errand for his employer, or where the employee is accommodating his employer in an emergency situation. Lane argues that he was injured by a hazard inherent in the conditions along the route he was required to take home; he was accommodating his employer by going home and taking a shower, thereby saving the company money for the cost of a shower at a truck stop; and he performed a duty of employment, showering, while at home. Lane was not driving an eighteen-wheeler at the time and was subject to the same dangers of the road as any employee driving home from work. Therefore, the drunk driver was not a special hazard that would remove Lane from the “going and coming” rule. With regard to accommodating his employer by taking a shower at home, no evidence was adduced that an emergency situation existed. Therefore, Lane could not fall within this exception to the “going and coming” rule. Lane was paid for the time he took showers while on the delivery routes. Further, he was reimbursed by H.K. for the costs to take these showers. By going home to take a shower, Lane would save H.K. the price of a shower at a truck stop and the pay that Lane would have received for his allotted thirty minutes for taking a shower. On this particular day, Lane had less than three hours to go off duty and then return to begin his second delivery route. That, coupled with the fact that his boss told Lane to go home, negates the idea that Lane was free to do whatever he wanted on the day of the accident. By traveling home, Lane followed the direction of his employer and attempted to save the company money by taking a shower at home. Due to the specific facts of this case, Lane met the second exception to the “going and coming” rule by performing an employment duty while at home. The case is remanded back to the Commission for a determination of benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
