JEAN BARNES COLLECTIONS AND AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAYNE RHODES ELSTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of workers' compensation benefits to an employee who was raped in her hotel room while traveling at her employer's request for job training. The court held that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment under the "traveling employee's rule," making the injury compensable.
The injury was compensable because it arose out of and in the course of employment under the "traveling employee's rule." Employees traveling at the employer's request for training are continuously within the course of employment during the trip, except when engaging in personal errands, and injuries from necessity (such as sleeping in hotels) are ordinarily held compensable.
[1] An injury sustained by an employee who is traveling at the employer's request is compensable under the "traveling employees" rule, even if the injury occurs during necess…
[2] Employees whose work requires travel away from the employer's premises are considered to be within the course of their employment continuously during the trip, unless a d…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Employees whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises are held ... to be within the course of their employment continuously during the trip, except when a distinct department [sic] on a personal errand is shown. Thus, injuries arising out of the necessity of sleeping in hotels or eating in restaurants away from home are usually held compensable.”
Establishes the traveling employee's rule that is the basis for the court's holding that the injury is compensable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was hired by the appellant employer and was requested to travel with the employer in a company car from Tampa to Fort Lauderdale for furt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arising Out Of And In The Course Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
In affirming the deputy commissioner’s order that claimant suffered an injury as a result of an attack and rape, we find that the injury was one arising out of and in the course of her employment because it was a compensable injury under the “traveling employee’s rule.”
The deputy commissioner specifically found that the claimant had been hired by the appellant/employer and that she had been requested by the employer to travel with her in a company car from Tampa to Fort Lauderdale for the purpose of obtaining further training. En route, the employer purchased both meals and hotel lodging in Orlando for the claimant. While in her hotel room, sometime after 9 p. m. on a Sunday evening, claimant was attacked and raped. Because there is competent and substantial evidence to support these findings, we affirm the deputy commissioner’s determination. Redding v. Cobia Boat Co., 389 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla.1980). The appellants argue that the claimant’s injury was not one “arising out of and in the course of employment”, as required by Section 440.02(6), Florida Statutes (1977). Although the appellants suggest that the claimant’s injury did not causally arise out of her employment — a contention that we reject — the primary thrust of their argument rests on the position that the accident was not one occurring within the time, space, and circumstances of her employment. In essence, appellants argue that the injury did not occur within the course of claimant’s employment. See Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria, 383 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1980).
We reject this contention, because the claimant was traveling at her employer’s request to Fort Lauderdale to receive further training. Applicable to this case is the “traveling employees” rule, which states:
Employees whose work entails travel away from the employer’s premises are held ... to be within the course of their employment continuously during the trip, except when a distinct department [sic] on a personal errand is shown. Thus, injuries arising out of the necessity of sleeping in hotels or eating in restaurants away from home are usually held compensable.
1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 25.00 (1979).
As noted in an authoritative opinion in Ridgway v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, 98 Idaho 410, 565 P. 2d 1367, 1372 (1977) (Bistline, Justice, concurring), the traveling employees rule applies not only to traveling sales personnel, but to workers attending conferences or training sessions. Because the appellants have presented no evidence to show a personal errand by the claimant at the time of her rape, it is presumed the injury is compensable. Hacker v. St. Petersburg Kennel Club, 396 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1981).
Accordingly, the deputy commissioner’s order is AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…tly if not directly benefit the employer; that such acts, therefore, are not in fact deviations from the course of employment. Ill So. 2d at 271-272. In applying the “traveling employee” rule, our sister court in Jean Barnes Collections v. Elston, 413 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), quoted 1A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 25.00 (1979), as follows: “Employees whose work entails travel away from the employer’s premises are held ... to be within the course of their employment continuously dur…
-
PAN Am. World Airways & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bonita Wilmot, 492 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…g employee rule include: Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2nd DCA), pet. for review den., 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985) (injuries sustained in an automobile accident while en route to dinner on a business trip); Jean Barnes Collections v. Elston, 413 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (injuries resulting from rape and attack while staying in a hotel during a business trip); Gray v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 475 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied 484 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1986) (injuries suffered while playin…
-
Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…ensability where an unknown pedestrian threw a rock through the car window of an employee who was driving back to work after completing a work errand, causing a crash, whereupon the employee was beaten and robbed); Jean Barnes Collections v. Elston, 413 So. 2d 797, 797–98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (finding traveling employee’s injuries compensable after she was attacked and raped in her hotel room); Fernandez v. Consol. Box Co., 249 So. 2d 434, 434–35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (finding compensability where unknown assail…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blanche Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria, 383 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1980)
- Hacker v. ST. Petersburg Kennel Club, 396 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1981)
- Redding v. Cobia Boat Co., 389 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1980)