Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Young, No. AK-357

CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtTHOMPSON; ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr.; SHIVERS; SHIVERS
Citation421 So.2d 706
Docket NumberNo. AK-357
Decision Date09 November 1982
PartiesTAMPA SHIP REPAIR & DRY DOCK COMPANY, self insured, Appellant, v. Kris Edward YOUNG, Appellee.

Page 706

421 So.2d 706
TAMPA SHIP REPAIR & DRY DOCK COMPANY, self insured, Appellant,
v.
Kris Edward YOUNG, Appellee.
No. AK-357.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Nov. 9, 1982.

Edward F. Gerace, Tampa, for appellant.

Ronald W. Young, Tampa, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

The self-insured employer appeals the order of the deputy commissioner (deputy) finding claimant's accident compensable, contending the deputy erroneously determined that the claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We agree and reverse.

Claimant was injured in an automobile accident on November 1, 1979 at approximately 3:15 a.m. while on his way to work. Claimant normally worked from 7:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., but it was not unusual for him to work overtime. On the day before his accident claimant's employer requested that he come to work at 4:30 a.m., or three hours before his normal starting time. While driving to work on November 1, claimant was involved in an accident with two drag-racing vehicles approximately 15 miles from his place of employment.

The claimant contends that he was on a special errand for the employer since he was reporting to work early at the employer's

Page 707

request. Accordingly, he concludes that under Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161, 17 So.2d 706 (1944), compensation is not precluded by the going and coming rule. The deputy agreed with this rationale and ruled that the claim was compensable.

However, Bowen is distinguishable from the instant case. In Bowen the employee worked irregular hours, often working both early and late, and sometimes rendered 24-hour service to his employer. His employment involved many duties away from the employer's place of business. At the time of his injury he was on the way to work early, at his employer's request, to pick up a truck so he could make two out-of-town business trips for his employer in one day. In the instant case, the claimant worked regular hours from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with the exception of some voluntary overtime, as a rigger at the Tampa Ship Repair and Dry Dock Company. His job did not require travel. At the time of the accident he was driving his own car en route to the employer's place of business to perform his job. The route taken was selected by him, and it was apparently his normal and usual route to work. He was not on any special errand or mission for his employer, but was merely en route to do his regular job. There was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Histed v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 12, 1993
    ...v. Industrial Acc. Comm'n, 61 Cal.2d 289, 38 Cal.Rptr. 352, 391 P.2d 832 (1964). Cf. Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Young, Fla.App., 421 So.2d 706 There also is the factor of Du Pont's compensation plan. Ms. Histed was entitled to three hours' travel pay in addition to time and one hal......
  • Freeman v. Manpower, Inc., No. AU-290
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 25, 1984
    ...liability. Additionally, the job involved in the instant case did not require any travel, see Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Young, 421 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and there was no arrangement or understanding for employer reimbursement of McLaney's use of his car. McLaney had not y......
  • Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, No. 89-2130
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1990
    ...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 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 ......
  • Radomski v. Great Bicycle Shop, Inc., No. AY-186
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 15, 1985
    ...this would not convert the claimant's trip home in this instance to a 'special errand.' Tampa Ship Repair & Drydock Co. v. Young, 421 So.2d 706 (1st DCA 1982). There was no evidence of an implied agreement on the part of the employer shown by the course of business, that going to or coming ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Histed v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 12, 1993
    ...v. Industrial Acc. Comm'n, 61 Cal.2d 289, 38 Cal.Rptr. 352, 391 P.2d 832 (1964). Cf. Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Young, Fla.App., 421 So.2d 706 There also is the factor of Du Pont's compensation plan. Ms. Histed was entitled to three hours' travel pay in addition to time and one hal......
  • Freeman v. Manpower, Inc., No. AU-290
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 25, 1984
    ...liability. Additionally, the job involved in the instant case did not require any travel, see Tampa Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. Young, 421 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and there was no arrangement or understanding for employer reimbursement of McLaney's use of his car. McLaney had not y......
  • Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, No. 89-2130
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 12, 1990
    ...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 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 ......
  • Radomski v. Great Bicycle Shop, Inc., No. AY-186
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 15, 1985
    ...this would not convert the claimant's trip home in this instance to a 'special errand.' Tampa Ship Repair & Drydock Co. v. Young, 421 So.2d 706 (1st DCA 1982). There was no evidence of an implied agreement on the part of the employer shown by the course of business, that going to or coming ......
  • 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