McDaniel v. Bus Terminal Restaurant Management Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 August 1978
• Docket Number: No. 20747,20747
• Citation: 271 S.C. 299,247 S.E.2d 321
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Lucille McDANIEL, Respondent, v. BUS TERMINAL RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellant.

Page 321

247 S.E.2d 321

271 S.C. 299

Lucille McDANIEL, Respondent, v. BUS TERMINAL RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellant.

No. 20747.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 22, 1978.

Wright, Scott, Blackwell & Powers, Florence, for appellant.

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and F. Barron Grier, III, Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

This appeal by Bus Terminal Restaurant Management Corporation is from the order of the circuit court affirming the South Carolina Industrial Commission's (Commission) award of compensation to respondent Lucille McDaniel. The issue is whether Ms. McDaniel's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment based on the "special errand" doctrine. We hold the injuries are not compensable and reverse.

The facts as found by the Commission are not disputed. Ms. McDaniel was employed as a cook by Holiday Inn, Inc., the parent company for Bus Terminal Restaurant. On Wednesday, November 5, 1975 a mandatory meeting of all employees was scheduled to discuss work procedures and customer service. November 5 was a payday for the employees. The meeting lasted from 2:00 p. m. to 2:45 p. m. and each employee received one hour's compensation for his attendance at the meeting. Meetings of this type had been held in the past and were not unusual.

Ms. McDaniel was not scheduled to work on November 5, 1975 but was required to attend the employee meeting. The meeting was held at the normal place of employment, and Ms. McDaniel traveled to the meeting by taxicab, her normal mode of transportation. She was not compensated for her time traveling or for the cost of her transportation. At the close of the meeting Ms. McDaniel left the premises and walked to a nearby Sears store to cash her paycheck. She returned to her place of employment to pay a debt to a fellow employee, and while on the premises used the telephone to call a taxicab. After a short period of time she left the premises, entered a cab to return home, and was injured when the cab and a Trailways bus collided.

Ms. McDaniel's request for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act was denied by the Single Commissioner. The Full Commission reversed the Single Commissioner and awarded compensation. The circuit court affirmed the award of compensation by the Full Commission. This appeal by Bus Terminal Restaurant followed.

Both the Full Commission and the circuit court determined that Ms. McDaniel's injuries were compensable because at the time of her accident she was engaged in a "special errand" for her employer. The only question presented by this appeal is whether the "special errand" doctrine was correctly applied to the facts of this case.

As a general rule, an employee going to or coming from the place where his work is to be performed is not engaged in the discharge of any service growing out of or incidental to his employment, and an injury suffered by the employee while "going or coming" is not considered to arise out of and in the course of his employment. Daniels v. Roumillat, 264 S.C. 497, 216 S.E.2d 174 (1975).

Among the recognized exceptions to the going and coming rule is the "special errand" doctrine. The underlying basis of the "special errand" doctrine is that the general rule excluding injuries incurred during the trip to or from work should not apply if the journey to or from work was part of a special errand or mission for the employer or if the journey itself was a substantial part of the service for which the worker was employed. Gregg v. Dorchester County School...