Susan Loverings Figure Salon v. McRorie, BK-22
| Decision Date | 16 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BK-22,BK-22 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2632 SUSAN LOVERINGS FIGURE SALON and Aetna Life & Casualty, Appellants, v. Trisha McRORIE, Appellee. |
Philip D. Parrish of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellants.
W. James Kelly and C. Kenneth Stuart of W. James Kelly, P.A., Lakeland, for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from a workers' compensation order finding appellant temporarily totally disabled as a result of her motorcycle accident on the way home from work and awarding temporary total disability and medical benefits. The deputy commissioner found the accident to fit under an exception to the "going and coming" rule in finding compensability. We reverse.
Appellee, a 39-year-old employee of the figure salon (appellant), was injured in a motorcycle accident at approximately 11:25 p.m., while en route home after working late to finish up some paperwork. Appellee was considered the manager of the salon by most of the employees and was known to often work odd hours, filling in for other employees and performing some of the owner's duties. Appellee testified that she considered herself the manager of the salon, as she was paid more than the other employees, had the authority to hire and train employees, was required to pick up supplies using her vehicle, would clean up and do paperwork at the end of her shift, and would fulfill some of the owner's functions when she was not there.
On the evening of the accident, her shift ended at 9:00 p.m., but she stayed late to finish her paperwork, as she had before on numerous occasions. She testified that she was on her "regular way home" that evening when the accident occurred. The other driver was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
The record indicates that appellee was never paid overtime for working late and that she never received direct reimbursement for using her vehicle to pick up supplies or going to the salon at odd hours, although the owner would frequently buy her dinner. The owner testified that appellee declined the manager's position when offered and that all the employees run errands with their vehicles and are required to do paperwork.
The deputy found compensability and awarded benefits on the basis that appellee was the "defacto" manager of the salon, who was "on call" on the evening of the accident and expected to work late, and (because of her late-night hours) was exposed to a hazard (drunk drivers) which resulted in her injuries.
As a general rule, injuries sustained by an employee when en route to or from his regular place of business are noncompensable, as they are not considered to have arisen out of or in the course of employment. However, there are many exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
...the employer will almost always qualify it as a special errand exempt from the going and coming rule."); Susan Loverings Figure Salon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Despite the fact that the special errand exception can be an independent basis for finding an injury compensa......
-
Wilson ex rel. Estate of Wilson v. General Tavern
...are noncompensable, as they are not considered to have arisen out of or in the course of employment." Susan Loverings Figure. Salon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc., v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) applies the going and coming rule ......
-
Spartan Food Systems & Subsidiaries v. Hopkins
...duties which are occasionally required, the special errand doctrine is not always applicable. See Susan Loverings Figure Saloon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Appellant argues that the special errand doctrine should not apply in the present case because claimant had previou......
-
New Dade Apparel, Inc. v. De Lorenzo, BO-280
...courts have found that irregularity and suddenness of the employer's request are essential elements. Susan Loverings Figure Salon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Eady, In this case, although appellee normally worked Saturday mornings, he was not scheduled to do so on the day......