George v. Woodville Lumber Co., QQ-49
| Citation | 382 So.2d 802 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. QQ-49,QQ-49 |
| Parties | Handy GEORGE, Jr., Appellant, v. WOODVILLE LUMBER COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
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.
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 558 (Fla.1977)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
...and, 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......
-
Poinciana Village Const. Corp. v. Gallarano, AI-55
...and 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 te......
- Whaley v. State., PP-387
-
El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, XX-22
...to or coming 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 (Fla.1980). The deputy commissioner attempted to justify the award under the special errand exception to the going and coming r......