Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, No. 87-564

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtWENTWORTH
Citation13 Fla. L. Weekly 1221,525 So.2d 987
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 1221 SPARTAN FOOD SYSTEMS & SUBSIDIARIES and Seibels, Bruce Group, Appellants, v. Terry M. HOPKINS, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 87-564
Decision Date20 May 1988

Page 987

525 So.2d 987
13 Fla. L. Weekly 1221
SPARTAN FOOD SYSTEMS & SUBSIDIARIES and Seibels, Bruce Group, Appellants,
v.
Terry M. HOPKINS, Appellee.
No. 87-564.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
May 20, 1988.

Page 988

David A. McCranie, of Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland & Maida, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Roderic G. Magie, of Arnold & Magie, Milton, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Employer/carrier seek review of a June 22, 1987 workers' compensation order by which claimant was found to have sustained a compensable injury and awarded temporary disability and medical benefits. Appellant contends the deputy erred in applying the special errand exception to the going and coming rule. We affirm.

Claimant sustained injuries when she was involved in a vehicular accident while traveling to work at a Hardee's restaurant owned by the employer in Pensacola. Claimant was assigned to this restaurant with a reporting time of 8 a.m., and on the day of the accident had received a telephone call from her supervisor asking her to stop at a Hardee's in Milton to obtain extra beverage cups which she could bring with her when she arrived at work. Claimant left home approximately 35 minutes earlier than usual, and the trip to Milton required claimant to deviate from her usual route to work. She traveled to Milton and obtained the cups as requested, thereafter returning to her normal route which she usually travels to work, when her vehicle was rear-ended while she was stopped in traffic on the interstate highway.

Claimant testified that her trip to Milton involved a total of approximately 10 miles and 20 minutes extra time. Claimant was not compensated for this trip and does not receive any mileage reimbursement. She stated that in the two years during which she has worked for the employer she has made approximately 15 unreimbursed trips for various errands, and that about three weeks before the date of her accident she had traveled to the Hardee's in Milton to obtain an extra coffee pot on the way to work.

The deputy commissioner entered an order finding that at the time of her injury claimant was on a special errand for her employer and covered under the workers' compensation law "from portal to portal." The deputy determined that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded temporary disability and medical benefits.

Where an employee is merely performing ordinary employment duties which are occasionally required, the special...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...exception have also used this exception when referring to the dual purpose doctrine. For example, in Spartan Food Systems v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court concluded that the special errand exception applied to an employee who received a sudden call requiring her to p......
  • Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., No. 1D99-2371.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2001
    ...site did not serve any business purpose at all. See D.C. Moore & Sons, 568 So.2d at 999; Spartan Food Sys. & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So.2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Mr. Rodriguez's trip to and from home resemble......
  • Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, No. 89-2130
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1990
    ...227 So.2d 486 (Fla.1969); Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979); and Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1 DCA The Employer/Carrier relies on El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1 DCA 1981) and Tampa Ship Repair and Dry ......
  • The Oaks v. Paulk, No. 89-1451
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1990
    ...under the "special errand" exception to the going and coming rule. We affirm. See Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); and Gulliford v. Nikko Gold Coast Cruises, 423 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Moreover, based on the facts of this case as fou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...exception have also used this exception when referring to the dual purpose doctrine. For example, in Spartan Food Systems v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court concluded that the special errand exception applied to an employee who received a sudden call requiring her to p......
  • Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., No. 1D99-2371.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2001
    ...site did not serve any business purpose at all. See D.C. Moore & Sons, 568 So.2d at 999; Spartan Food Sys. & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So.2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Mr. Rodriguez's trip to and from home resemble......
  • Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, No. 89-2130
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1990
    ...227 So.2d 486 (Fla.1969); Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979); and Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1 DCA The Employer/Carrier relies on El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1 DCA 1981) and Tampa Ship Repair and Dry ......
  • The Oaks v. Paulk, No. 89-1451
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 1990
    ...under the "special errand" exception to the going and coming rule. We affirm. See Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins, 525 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); and Gulliford v. Nikko Gold Coast Cruises, 423 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Moreover, based on the facts of this case as fou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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