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

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtSHIVERS
Citation395 So.2d 225
PartiesEL VIEJO ARCO IRIS, INC., and American Casualty Company, Appellants, v. Ildefonso LUACES, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. XX-22
Decision Date27 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...and any other special circumstances. See Eady, 377 So.2d at 696. Applying these factors, the court in El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), held that an employee's trip home, after picking up plumbing supplies at the request of his employer, did not fall wit......
  • Wilson ex rel. Estate of Wilson v. General Tavern, No. 05-81128CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 29, 2006
    ...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 to an employee involved in the accident while driving home. A plumber's assistant's em......
  • Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Traylor/Wolfe Architects, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-1094-J-32JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 6, 2014
    ...longer being used for a business purpose, and was therefore no longer covered by the endorsement. See El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that claimant was no longer in the course of his employment once he had accomplished his assignment). Fo......
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. 97-3023
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 12, 1998
    ...his route, he remains within the course and scope of employment until a deviation actually occurs); El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (stating that an employee traveling his regular route home remained within the course and scope of his employment un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. SC94489.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 24, 2001
    ...and any other special circumstances. See Eady, 377 So.2d at 696. Applying these factors, the court in El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), held that an employee's trip home, after picking up plumbing supplies at the request of his employer, did not fall wit......
  • Wilson ex rel. Estate of Wilson v. General Tavern, No. 05-81128CIV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 29, 2006
    ...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 to an employee involved in the accident while driving home. A plumber's assistant's em......
  • Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Traylor/Wolfe Architects, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-1094-J-32JBT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 6, 2014
    ...longer being used for a business purpose, and was therefore no longer covered by the endorsement. See El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So. 2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that claimant was no longer in the course of his employment once he had accomplished his assignment). Fo......
  • Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., No. 97-3023
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 12, 1998
    ...his route, he remains within the course and scope of employment until a deviation actually occurs); El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces, 395 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (stating that an employee traveling his regular route home remained within the course and scope of his employment un......
  • 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