Stough v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 1955

• Decision Date: 07 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. 1955,1955
• Citation: 311 S.C. 129,427 S.E.2d 716
• Parties: Robert A. STOUGH, Deceased Employee, Elizabeth Irwin Stough, Respondent, v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 716

427 S.E.2d 716

311 S.C. 129

Robert A. STOUGH, Deceased Employee, Elizabeth Irwin Stough Respondent, v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Appellants.

No. 1955.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted Jan. 18, 1993.

Decided Feb. 22, 1993.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1993.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 7, 1993.

Paul B. Rodgers, III, of Pope & Rodgers, Columbia, for appellants.

Isadore E. Lourie and Andrew N. Safran of Lourie, Curlee, Barrett, Ragsdale & Safran, Columbia, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

This is a workers' compensation case. Robert A. Stough was killed in an automobile accident while traveling from his job in North Augusta to his home in Columbia. Elizabeth Irwin Stough, Stough's widow, filed a claim for death benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The single hearing commissioner denied the claim, ruling there was no business purpose for Stough's travel. The full commission reversed the hearing commissioner and awarded benefits to the widow. The circuit court affirmed the full commission. Westinghouse appeals. We affirm the circuit court's judgment.

Stough was employed as a professional engineer by Westinghouse. He worked in North Augusta but lived in Columbia, commuting to work every day in his personal car. Stough received no compensation for driving to and from work. At least once a week, he traveled from his home to Charlotte to meet with a Westinghouse subcontractor to transmit and review procurement orders and evaluate the status of various projects. Because Stough worked in Charlotte on such a regular basis, the subcontractor provided him an auxiliary office in Charlotte. Westinghouse paid Stough's roundtrip mileage expenses between his home in Columbia and Charlotte.

On the day of the accident, Stough attended a meeting in his North Augusta office relating, in part, to the work he was supervising at the subcontractor's office in Charlotte. When he left the office at the end of the work day, he took with him various documents he planned to deliver to the subcontractor's office the next day. Stough died in an automobile accident on his way home to Columbia.

Westinghouse argues Stough's accident is not compensable because it occurred on Stough's trip home. Generally, injuries sustained going to and from work are not compensable, because they do not arise out of and in the course of employment. See Wright v. Wright, 306 S.C. 331, 411 S.E.2d 829 (Ct.App.1991), cert. denied, (S.C.Sup.Ct. Apr. 7, 1992). However, the general rule does not apply if, among other things, the employee, on his way to or from his work, is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment. Id. Moreover, an injury incurred during a trip which serves both a business and a personal purpose is within the scope of employment if the trip involves the performance of a service for the employer which would have caused the trip to be taken by someone even if it had not coincided with the personal journey. Corley v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 237 S.C. 439, 117 S.E.2d 577 (1960). Stated another way, if the work of the employee necessitates his travel, he is in the course of employment, even though he is serving at the same time some purpose of his own. Id. The service to the employer must be at least a concurrent cause of the trip, but not necessarily the sole cause. Id. ¹

Stough's work in Charlotte was one of his primary responsibilities at Westinghouse. He was scheduled to do his usual Westinghouse work in Charlotte the next day. At the time of the accident, he was carrying documents for delivery to Charlotte. Westinghouse would have had to...