El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, No. XX-22

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: SHIVERS
• Citation: 395 So.2d 225
• Parties: EL VIEJO ARCO IRIS, INC., and American Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Ildefonso LUACES, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. XX-22
• Decision Date: 27 February 1981

Page 225

395 So.2d 225 EL VIEJO ARCO IRIS, INC., and American Casualty Company, Appellants,
v.
Ildefonso LUACES, Appellee. No. XX-22. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Feb. 27, 1981.
Rehearing Denied April 2, 1981.

H. B. Yandle, of Law Offices of Joel R. Teague, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Rogelio R. Oliver, Miami, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Employer/carrier appeal a workers' compensation order finding the claimant sustained a compensable accident. We reverse.

Claimant, a plumber's helper, was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work after first picking up some materials from a plumbing supply store at the request of his employer. The plumbing materials were to be used at the job site the next day. Although the employer maintained a company shop, the claimant testified that he usually reported directly to the particular job site at 7:30 a. m. and would return home from the job site at 4:00 p. m. The day of the accident, the claimant worked eight hours at the job site. At 3:55 p. m., he left the job site and took his usual route home. Pursuant to his employer's request, he picked up the plumbing materials at the supply store which was on his route home. After picking up the materials, he resumed his trip home and was involved in the automobile accident at 4:05 p. m.

Page 226

The deputy commissioner erred in failing to apply the going and coming rule and in finding that the claimant was involved in a special errand for the employer at the time of the automobile accident while on his way home. Injuries sustained by a claimant while going to or coming from his place of work are not considered to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. George v. Woodville Lumber Company, 382 So.2d 802 (Fla.1980).

The deputy commissioner attempted to justify the award under the special errand exception to the going and coming rule. Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So.2d 693 (Fla.1979). Eady, supra, held that a claimant, who was injured while en route from her home to a special assignment from the employer after already working an eight hour work shift that day, was not within the going and coming rule because she was on a special errand for the employer at the time of the injury, the special errand assignment came suddenly, and the particular route to the assignment was not a regular or frequent one. The court noted that if the "particular journey is a regular or frequent one, there is a...