HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, INC., WHITING NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT G. KRIDER, 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.
Holly Hill Fruit Products and its carrier appealed a workers' compensation award to an injured employee who was struck by a car while walking to a convenience store during work hours. The court affirmed the award, holding that a brief, employer-condoned off-premises trip during a refreshment break falls within the course and scope of employment.
The court held that an employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration does not constitute a deviation sufficient to remove a claimant from the course and scope of employment, and the employee's injury was therefore compensable under workers' compensation law.
[1] An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of emplo…
[2] An employee's attendance to personal comfort during a refreshment break is conducive to the facilitation of employment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for when off-premises breaks remain within the scope of employment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant was injured when struck by an automobile while crossing a road adjacent to the employer's premises during working hours. The claimant had lef…
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 Personal Comfort Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Employer/carrier seek review of a workers’ compensation order by which claimant was awarded medical and temporary disability benefits. We affirm the order appealed.
Claimant was injured when struck by an automobile while walking across a road adjacent to employer’s premises. The injury occurred during working hours, and claimant had left the work premises to purchase cigarettes at a nearby convenience store. Claimant testified that he had no regularly scheduled breaks, but rather was allowed to attend to his personal comfort during lulls in the employment. Although employer had an on-premises snack bar with a cigarette vending machine, claimant indicated that the employees generally frequented the convenience store across the street because it had a better selection of goods and was more economical. Employer’s plant superintendent admitted that the employees routinely frequented the convenience store to purchase food, drinks, and cigarettes during working hours. The superintendent stated that it was company policy to discourage such off-premises trips, and suggested that the employees should “clock out” before departing the premises. However, there is no indication that such a policy was enforced or ever communicated to claimant.
In awarding benefits the deputy commissioner found that claimant’s injury occurred during a refreshment break, and that claimant “was not in violation of any company rule....” The record provides competent substantial evidence in support of these determinations, and to the extent that they encompass issues of credibility they are within the ambit of the deputy’s fact-finding authority. See Grillo v. Big “B” Ranch, 328 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1976).
An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment. See Cunningham v. Scotty’s Home Builders, 9 FCR 1 (1973), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1974). In Cunningham the claimant was injured while returning from a convenience store at which he purchased food and drink. Although the off-premises trip in the present case was motivated by a desire to purchase cigarettes, we find this distinction to be insignificant. The trip was a foreseeable and non-prohibited refreshment break activity, and employer's authority over claimant was not significantly dissipated during the course of the trip. As Cunningham indicates, a worker’s attendance to personal comfort during a refreshment break is conducive to the facilitation of the employment, and in the circumstances presented in the present case claimant’s brief off-premises trip did not remove him from the course and scope of his employment.
The order appealed is affirmed.
NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gray v. E. Airlines, Inc., 475 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…Brooks, 416 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). A foreseeable, nonprohibited, off-premises refreshment break has not been considered to be a deviation removing a claimant from the course and scope of employment. Holly Hill Fruit Products Inc. v. Krider, 473 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Entitlement to compensation would therefore appear to be reasonably arguable for claimant in the present case if he had incurred his injury in a store or restaurant while purchasing necessary food or drink. See Cunningham v. Sco…
-
Lethie Lanham v. Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Fla. Dep't of Ins. Risk Management/WC Claims, 868 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“Claimant’s off-premises act in reasonable pursuit of personal comfort needs during employment hours, and at a place condoned by the employer, was not a deviation from his work.... ”); Holly Hill Fruit Prods., Inc. v. Krider, 473 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment.”); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So. 2d 852, 85…
-
Bayfront Med. Ctr. & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Harding, 653 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…d not show a degree of deviation from employment sufficient to justify a finding of non-compensability. We agree, and concur in the judge’s opinion that the facts of the instant case are similar to those in Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider, 473 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In that case, we applied the personal comfort doctrine in affirming an order awarding benefits, where a claimant had left the employer’s property to purchase cigarettes and was injured while returning. We held that “[a]n employe…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grillo v. BIG "B" Ranch, 328 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1976)
- Scotty's Home Builders & Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Matthew P. Cunningham & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 307 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1974)
- Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. v. Morlock, 307 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1975)