TODD DARLING, APPELLANT,
v.
CONLEY BUICK, INC., AND ADJUSTCO, INC.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a workers' compensation denial, holding that a used car salesman's automobile accident while delivering a customer's personal documents arose out of and in the course of employment, despite driving five miles past the destination, because the deviation was not substantial enough to break the causal nexus.
A deviation from an employment errand does not render an injury non-compensable under workers' compensation unless the deviation is substantial and breaks the causal connection to the employment purpose.
[1] A minor deviation from an employment errand, standing alone, does not constitute substantial deviation sufficient to render an injury non-compensable under workers' compe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the claimant could have reasonably believed that was what he should do”
The JCC's finding regarding whether the claimant was instructed to make the Sunday delivery, even though not explicitly told to do so.
A used car salesman was instructed to return personal documents (driver's license and insurance card) to a customer who had left them at the dealershi…
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 Causal Nexus cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the injuries sustained in an automobile accident are not compensable under workers’ compensation, as the accident did not arise out of, and in the course of, employment. The claimant, a used car salesman, had been instructed by his employer to return certain personal documents to their owner, a customer who had left those items at the car dealership. Although the claimant was not specifically told to make the delivery on Sunday, when the dealership was usually closed and when the accident occurred, the JCC found that “the claimant could have reasonably believed that was what he should do.” Competent substantial evidence was presented to support the finding that the process of delivering the customer’s driver’s license and insurance card constituted a special errand for the employer. After determining that the claimant was engaged in a business purpose, however, the JCC also found that the claimant substantially deviated from the employment purpose by driving five miles beyond the customer’s residence, thereby rendering the claim non-compensable. The finding of substantial deviation is not supported by competent substantial evidence and is in error. See Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co. of Miami, Inc., 297 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1974); Sanford v. A.P. Clark Motors, 45 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1950); Cooper v. Stephens, 470 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanford v. AP Clark Motors, 45 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1950)
- Taylor v. Dixie Plywood Co. OF Miami, Inc., 297 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1974)
- Cooper v. J.A. Stephens & Fla. Farm Bureau of Cas. Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)