LEROY STACY, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERRY FARMS, INC., AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
A worker's son appeals the denial of workers' compensation death benefits following his father's fatal automobile accident. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the death occurred outside the scope of employment under the "going and coming rule."
The court held that the death was non-compensable because it occurred outside the scope of employment. The deputy's order was supported by competent, substantial evidence, and even if the deceased was traveling to work, the "going and coming rule" would preclude compensation absent one of the recognized exceptions.
[1] The "going and coming rule" precludes workers' compensation benefits for an employee traveling to or from work unless specific exceptions apply.
[2] Exceptions to the "going and coming rule" include compensation for travel expenses, performing a special errand for the employer, employer control over destination, route…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an employee going to or coming from work is considered outside the scope of his employment unless he is compensated for his travel expenses, is performing a special errand for his employer, has his destination, route and mode of transportation controlled by the employer, or is required by the terms of his employment contract to provide transportation to other employees.”
Statement of the going and coming rule and its exceptions, which governs whether travel to and from work is within the scope of employment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 6, 1982, the claimant's father, an employee of Cherry Farms, Inc., was killed in an automobile accident. The claimant sought workers' compensa…
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 Workers' Compensation Death Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals a deputy commissioner’s order denying him compensation benefits for the death of his father, an employee of Cherry Farms, Inc., upon finding that such death occurred outside the scope of his father’s employment. We affirm.
On July 6, 1982, claimant’s father was killed in an automobile accident and claimant sought workers’ compensation death benefits alleging that the accident occurred while his father was transporting himself and his crew to work as required by the terms of his employment contract. Contrary to claimant’s assertion, the deputy found that the record more reasonably indicated that his father was not traveling to work when the accident occurred. The deputy pointed out, however, that even if the deceased wás going to work at the time of his accident, the “going and coming rule” would preclude the award of compensation benefits. According to that rule, an employee going to or coming from work is considered outside the scope of his employment unless he is compensated for his travel expenses, is performing a special errand for his employer, has his destination, route and mode of transportation controlled by the employer, or is required by the terms of his employment contract to provide transportation to other employees. George v. Woodville Lumber Company, 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The deputy found that none of these exceptions to the going and coming rule were supported by the record; therefore, even if the deceased was traveling to work at the time of his accident, his death was non-compensable.
Upon a complete review of the record, we find that the deputy’s order is supported by competent, substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, WENTWORTH and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleman Music & Games & Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Burton, 464 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So. 2d 483 (Fla.1961); Burnup & Sims Telecom, Inc. v. White, 449 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). MILLS, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
-
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Ins. Serv. v. Polite, 495 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e was not precluded from receiving worker’s compensation benefits by the “going and coming” rule. That rule states that an employee going to or coming from work is normally considered outside the scope of his employment. Stacy v. Cherry Farms, Inc., 449 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Injuries occurring at such times are viewed as similar to other injuries suffered off-duty away from the employer’s premises and, like them, are not work-related. Gray v. Dade Co. School Board, 433 So. 2d 1009, 1010-11 (Fla. 1st…
Authorities Cited
- Whaley v. State, 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Handy George, Jr. v. Woodville Lumber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)