Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, No. 89-2130

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtZEHMER; SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS
Citation557 So.2d 953
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D668 TAMPA AIRPORT HILTON HOTEL and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Veulah HAWKINS, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 89-2130
Decision Date12 March 1990

Page 953

557 So.2d 953
15 Fla. L. Weekly D668
TAMPA AIRPORT HILTON HOTEL and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants,
v.
Veulah HAWKINS, Appellee.
No. 89-2130.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
March 12, 1990.

Ellen H. Lorenzen of Whalen, Morlan, Lorenzen, House & Schaefer, Tampa, for appellants.

Stephen L. Rosen of Morris & Rosen, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

ZEHMER, Judge.

The employer and carrier appeal a workers' compensation order that found that claimant's injuries in the automobile accident occurring on a trip from the employer's premises to claimant's home arose out of and in the course of her employment and thus were caused by a compensable accident. The judge of compensation claims found that this trip did not fall within the "going and coming" rule because the claimant, a banquet waitress who was on her way home after attending a special staff meeting at the employer's hotel well in advance of the normal time she was to report to work for her regular duties, was on a special trip for the benefit of the employer. The order recites:

4. Counsel for the parties have furnished several case citations for precedent, none of which are factually on point with the facts of this case, and research has not revealed any Florida authority that is factually on point. The Claimant relies on Krause v. West Lumber Co., 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 1988).

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 Dock v. Young, 421 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1 DCA 1982).

While none of these cases are factually on point, most, if not all, indicate that Florida follows the rule set out in 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, s. 16.00 (1978). The rule as set out by Professor Larson is:

Page 954

"When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the service itself."

Professor Larson cites Edens v. New Mexico Health and Social Serv. Dep't., 89 N.M. 60, 547 P.2d 65 (1976), which is factually very similar to the case before us.

5. The Claimant in this cause was employed by the Employer as a banquet waitress, meaning that her duties were to serve at banquets that were held at the Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel. Her duties were primarily those of a waitress. At the Employer's request, she returned to the premises on 9/26/88 to attend a staff meeting called by the Employer. The purpose of...

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
    • 24 Mayo 2001
    ...the court did not distinguish between the special errand and dual purpose exceptions. Likewise, in Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court simultaneously applied special errand and dual purpose principles, noting that because the employee was resp......
  • Torres v. Aulick Leasing, Inc., No. S-00-1187.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 15 Junio 2001
    ...on factual determinations); Electronic Service Clinic v. Barnard, 634 So.2d 707 (Fla.App.1994); Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla.App.1990) (whether employee's activity is covered by special errand exception is factual determination and cannot be disturbed on appeal ......
  • Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., No. 1D99-2371.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 4 Septiembre 2001
    ...1002, 1004-05 (Fla.1984); Hages v. Hughes Elec. Serv., 654 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA Affirmed. ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. ...
  • Publix Supermarkets v. Finocchi, No. 93-2158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 Febrero 1995
    ...depends on factual determinations which must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The present record contains sufficient evidence to support the factual findings upon which compensability was establishe......
  • 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
    • 24 Mayo 2001
    ...the court did not distinguish between the special errand and dual purpose exceptions. Likewise, in Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court simultaneously applied special errand and dual purpose principles, noting that because the employee was resp......
  • Torres v. Aulick Leasing, Inc., No. S-00-1187.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 15 Junio 2001
    ...on factual determinations); Electronic Service Clinic v. Barnard, 634 So.2d 707 (Fla.App.1994); Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla.App.1990) (whether employee's activity is covered by special errand exception is factual determination and cannot be disturbed on appeal ......
  • Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., No. 1D99-2371.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 4 Septiembre 2001
    ...1002, 1004-05 (Fla.1984); Hages v. Hughes Elec. Serv., 654 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA Affirmed. ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. ...
  • Publix Supermarkets v. Finocchi, No. 93-2158
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 Febrero 1995
    ...depends on factual determinations which must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The present record contains sufficient evidence to support the factual findings upon which compensability was establishe......
  • 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