George v. Woodville Lumber Co., No. QQ-49

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation382 So.2d 802
Docket NumberNo. QQ-49
Decision Date11 April 1980
PartiesHandy GEORGE, Jr., Appellant, v. WOODVILLE LUMBER COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

Page 802

382 So.2d 802
Handy GEORGE, Jr., Appellant,
v.
WOODVILLE LUMBER COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. QQ-49.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 11, 1980.

Page 803

Edward S. Stafman of Patterson & Traynham, and Stephen M. Slepin of Slepin & Slepin, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Lloyd C. Leemis of Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, P. A., Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals an order of the judge of industrial claims, which dismissed his claim for compensation. The judge found that the statute of limitations barred the claim and that claimant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. We affirm.

Claimant was injured in an automobile accident which occurred at about 7:45 a. m. on September 5, 1972, while he was on his way to work in his automobile. Claimant's regular work hours were from 8 a. m. until 5 p. m. At the time of the accident, claimant was furnishing two of his fellow employees, whom he supervised, transportation to work. Claimant contended that he was instructed by his employer to transport these fellow employees to work; however, claimant's employer denied having given such instructions to claimant. Claimant admitted that his employer did not furnish him gas or money to transport the other employees to work.

As a general rule, injuries sustained by an employee when going to or coming from his regular place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. This rule, however, is subject to numerous exceptions. See e. g., Larson, 1 Workmen's Compensation Law §§ 15.00, 16.00, 17.00, 18.00 et seq. (1978); Schneider, 8 Workmen's Compensation Text, § 1710 et seq. (3d Ed.1951). After thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments ably presented by counsel, we agree with the judge's determination that the present accident does not come within any of the exceptions to the going and coming rule. Claimant was not compensated or reimbursed by his employer for the transportation to work of either himself or his fellow workers. Claimant was not performing any special errands or duties for his employer at the time of the accident. Claimant's destination, route, and mode of transportation were of his own choosing. Nor was claimant's transportation to and from work an incident to or part of his contract of employment.

Lindblom v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, 344 So.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 24 mai 2001
    ...therefore, are not compensable. See Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Lehning, 684 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); § 440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). This rule governing compensability of workers' compensation claims is codified in s......
  • Poinciana Village Const. Corp. v. Gallarano, No. AI-55
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 23 août 1982
    ...coming rule" and would not be compensable. See Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979); George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The deputy found that there was no way to tell f......
  • El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, No. XX-22
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 février 1981
    ...from his place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. George v. Woodville Lumber Company, 382 So.2d 802 The deputy commissioner attempted to justify the award under the special errand exception to the going and coming rule. Eady v. Medical Pers......
  • Alvarez v. SEM-CHI RICE PRODUCTS CORP., No. 1D02-3507.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 décembre 2003
    ...his regular place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment." George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). This rule "is grounded in the recognition that injuries suffered while going to or coming from work are essentiall......
4 cases
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 24 mai 2001
    ...therefore, are not compensable. See Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Lehning, 684 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); § 440.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). This rule governing compensability of workers' compensation claims is codified in s......
  • Poinciana Village Const. Corp. v. Gallarano, No. AI-55
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 23 août 1982
    ...coming rule" and would not be compensable. See Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979); George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The deputy found that there was no way to tell f......
  • El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, No. XX-22
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 février 1981
    ...from his place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. George v. Woodville Lumber Company, 382 So.2d 802 The deputy commissioner attempted to justify the award under the special errand exception to the going and coming rule. Eady v. Medical Pers......
  • Alvarez v. SEM-CHI RICE PRODUCTS CORP., No. 1D02-3507.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 12 décembre 2003
    ...his regular place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment." George v. Woodville Lumber Co., 382 So.2d 802, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). This rule "is grounded in the recognition that injuries suffered while going to or coming from work are essentiall......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT