Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., No. 1D99-2371.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBENTON, J.
Citation792 So.2d 1253
PartiesJuan RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. TRI-STATE CARRIERS, INC. and Claims Center, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 1D99-2371.
Decision Date04 September 2001

792 So.2d 1253

Juan RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,
v.
TRI-STATE CARRIERS, INC. and Claims Center, Appellees

No. 1D99-2371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 4, 2001.


Dennis A. Palso, Esquire of Palso & Rooth, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Pamela Woolley, Esquire of Matusek, McKnight, Poluse & Cangro, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.

BENTON, J.

Juan Rodriguez appeals the order denying his claim for workers' compensation

792 So.2d 1254
benefits on account of a traffic accident. The judge of compensation claims concluded that the accident did not take place in the course and scope of Mr. Rodriguez's employment because he was on a personal mission at the time. Agreeing that the accident, which occurred while he was on his way to work, did not arise out of his employment, we affirm

Mr. Rodriguez worked as a truck driver for Tri-State Trucking Company (Tri-State) delivering dry cement to Tri-State's customers. The evening before the accident, he loaded one of Tri-State's trucks with cement for the first delivery the following day. After he finished, he did not drive home in his personal car because he had accidentally locked the keys inside after driving it to work that morning. Instead, he drove the loaded Tri-State truck home, some fifteen miles in the opposite direction from the job site where the next morning's delivery was to be made.

When he set out the next morning, November 16, 1997, to make the delivery, Mr. Rodriguez was injured in an accident before he regained the route he would have traveled from Tri-State's place of business to the delivery site. He had only gone a few miles down the road he ordinarily took—and would have taken in his car if the keys had not been locked inside— driving to work at Tri-State's distribution center.

Tri-State's handbook for employees required that, when not in use for business purposes, Tri-State's trucks were to be kept at Tri-State's place of business. Tri-State witnesses conceded, however, that they occasionally gave permission for an employee to take a truck home, the handbook notwithstanding, but only, they testified, if the employee's home was on a direct route to the next day's delivery site. Although Mr. Rodriguez claimed that he had been given blanket permission to drive Tri-State trucks home, Tri-State's witnesses disputed this, and the judge of compensation claims resolved the conflict against him.

In denying compensability, the judge of compensation claims relied on cases holding that an employee who is on a personal mission is outside the scope and course of employment. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Traylor/Wolfe Architects, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-1094-J-32JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 6 Agosto 2014
    ...his employment untilPage 15he returns to the employer's place of business or point of departure." Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (quotations omitted). Though not an insurance coverage case, Sunshine Jr. Food Stores, Inc. v. Thompson, 409 So.......
  • IMC Phosphates Co. v. Prater, No. 1D03-4954.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 Marzo 2005
    ...employee who is on a personal mission is outside the scope and course of employment." See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA It is the general rule in Florida that an employee who deviates from his employment to engage in a personal errand is no......
  • Sentry Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, No. 1D11–1041.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 2011
    ...the workplace provided none of the risk or did not otherwise contribute to the injury); see also Rodriguez v. Tri–State Carriers, Inc., 792 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (finding, as a general rule, that an injury does not arise out of employment if the employee was injured while engaged i......
3 cases
  • IMC Phosphates Co. v. Prater, No. 1D03-4954.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 Marzo 2005
    ...employee who is on a personal mission is outside the scope and course of employment." See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA It is the general rule in Florida that an employee who deviates from his employment to engage in a personal errand is no......
  • Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Traylor/Wolfe Architects, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-1094-J-32JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 6 Agosto 2014
    ...his employment untilPage 15he returns to the employer's place of business or point of departure." Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (quotations omitted). Though not an insurance coverage case, Sunshine Jr. Food Stores, Inc. v. Thompson, 409 So.......
  • Sentry Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, No. 1D11–1041.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Septiembre 2011
    ...the workplace provided none of the risk or did not otherwise contribute to the injury); see also Rodriguez v. Tri–State Carriers, Inc., 792 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (finding, as a general rule, that an injury does not arise out of employment if the employee was injured while engaged i......

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