Radomski v. Great Bicycle Shop, Inc., AY-186

• Decision Date: 15 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. AY-186,AY-186
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 711,464 So.2d 1346
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 711 Eric P. RADOMSKI, Appellant, v. GREAT BICYCLE SHOP, INC. and Safeco Insurance Company, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1346

464 So.2d 1346

10 Fla. L. Weekly 711

Eric P. RADOMSKI, Appellant, v. GREAT BICYCLE SHOP, INC. and Safeco Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. AY-186.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

First District.

March 15, 1985.

Donald M. Hinkle of Green, Fonvielle & Hinkle, Tallahassee, for appellant.

James N. McConnaughhay and Arthur C. Beal, Jr., of Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida, Tallahassee, for appellees.

MILLS, Judge.

Radomski appeals from a workers' compensation order denying his claim for benefits contending the deputy erred in finding that his injuries did not arise from an accident occurring in the course of his employment. We disagree and affirm.

The deputy's order in this case has been so well done, we adopt it as our opinion.

"3. It was the position of the employer/carrier that the accident did not arise out of and within the course and scope of his employment with his employer since the accident occurred while the claimant was going home from work and the 'going and coming rule' would be applicable. The claimant's response to this defense was that the 'special errands' exception to the usual going and coming rule applied, thus making the accident a part of the claimant's employment status. It was stipulated between the parties that this is the only exception to the usual going and coming rule that the claimant was asserting would apply.

"As an alternate defense, the employer/carrier took the position that even if the claimant was within the course and scope of his employment immediately prior to the accident, he had deviated from such employment at the time of the actual accident, thus precluding the payment of workers' compensation benefits. The claimant denied that there was or had been any deviation.

"4. The claimant was originally hired by the employer in mid August, 1983, as a bicycle mechanic. He worked regular hours of employment from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. five days per week. There were no irregular hours of employment and the claimant was not 'on call'. All work to be performed by the claimant was inside the employer's shops and he made no 'house calls'. He usually took Tuesdays and Sundays off but was 'flexible' in this regard depending upon the workload of the employer. If the employer was busy on a particular Tuesday, he would switch to another day.

"5. The employer had two bicycle shop locations. One location was on College Avenue and the other on Thomasville Road in Tallahassee, Florida. For the first several days of employment, he was assigned to the Thomasville Road location. However, because of his expertise in repairing more sophisticated bicycles, he was assigned to the College Avenue shop. He normally worked at the College Avenue shop but depending upon the workload of the employer, could and would be assigned to the Thomasville Road location. The claimant had gone to the Thomasville Road location with the employer on at least one occasion and had visited there no more than four times. He had also used the welding equipment at the Thomasville Road shop on a bicycle that had been taken in at the College Avenue store. The employer's business was small with days off and the location of work flexible, depending upon the workload.

"6. Several days prior to the day of this accident, the employer asked the claimant to work at the Thomasville Road location. Because of the Christmas rush, the claimant's services were needed at that place of business. In addition, the usual mechanic who was working there was off work due to taking exams at the university. As was his usual practice, the claimant went to work on his own bicycle. He did not own an automobile.

"7. The claimant lived on Carolina Street in Tallahassee and on the morning of the accident, he traveled to work on his bicycle using back roads ultimately ending up on Thomasville Road. It was the same route that he would follow on his way home after work. When riding a bicycle, the claimant stated that he would avoid areas where there was heavy vehicular traffic since it was less dangerous. The route that he took to the Thomasville Road location was in a residential area whereas the route that he usually took to the College Avenue shop was a heavy traffic area making it more dangerous to operate his bicycle.

"8. Regardless of whether he traveled to the Thomasville Road store or to the College Avenue store, he always used his own bicycle. The bicycle was not used as a part of his employment. He was not compensated by his employer for transportation to and from work, was not controlled by the employer to and from work, was not paid for this period, and could choose his route to follow without obtaining approval or permission from the employer.

"9. On Tuesday, December 13, 1983, the claimant worked all day at the Thomasville Road shop doing what he always did at work, i.e., repairing bicycles. He arrived at his usual working time around 10:00 a.m. and left at approximately 6:05 p.m., shortly after closing time and after his duties on the job had been completed. The claimant recalled coming down Martin Street which is a street running north and south located immediately adjacent to Lafayette Park. Martin Street intersects with Williams Street which runs east and west. The claimant intended to go from Martin to Williams Street and thereafter proceed to his house located on Carolina Street. The location of this intersection from the Thomasville Road shop is approximately one and one-half miles.

"Rather than going down Martin Street to its intersection with Williams Street, the claimant 'cut the corner' of Lafayette Park. The exact path that he followed is impossible to determine but from examining the area, he had to travel through concrete pilings, down a steep embankment, across a skating track, and down another steep embankment, where he crashed his bicycle resulting in injuries he is now suffering from.

"10. At the time of the accident, the claimant was going home. He was on no mission for the employer and was doing nothing for the benefit of his employer. He did not intend to stop in route home for any reason...