EVERETT FORD COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JULIA MARIE LANEY ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court reversed a workers' compensation award, holding that an employee's trip to retrieve her office key before coming to work was not covered under workers' compensation because it fell within the traditional 'going and coming rule,' which excludes injuries during ordinary commutes to and from work.
The injury is not compensable under workers' compensation because it falls within the 'going and coming rule.' The mere possession of an office key and irregular work hours do not create an agreement that employment commences before the employee arrives at the workplace, nor can retrieving a forgotten key be considered incidental to employment in any way other than as a preparation to go to work.
“the going and coming rule does not apply in this case. * * * She was engaged in a mission incidental to her employment.”
The commission's order finding the going and coming rule inapplicable—the precise holding the Supreme Court reversed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Laney was employed in bookkeeping and office work requiring irregular hours, for which she was furnished an office key. On the afternoon in q…
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 Going And Coming Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The commission has affirmed an award of compensation for injuries to the claimant Laney in an accident suffered by her while driving her automobile.
The material uncontroverted facts are that claimant’s employment, involving bookkeeping and office work, required frequent irregular hours, for which reason she was furnished an office key. On the afternoon of the accident she was away from the office for a period of hours on a purely personal shopping mission, and had agreed to complete her work later in the day or evening. Upon returning in the late afternoon after office hours, she discovered while still in her car that she had forgotten her office key. She started driving home to get it and the collision occurred en route.
The order on the point in question is that “the -going and coming rule does not apply in this case. * * * She was engaged in a mission incidental to her employment.” The commission’s affirmance cites Bowen v. Keen, 1944, 154 Fla. 161, 17 So.2d 706. The claimant’s employment in that case involved many duties away from the employer’s place of employment, and at the time of his injury he was en route from his home upon specific assignment to pick up his employer’s truck before regular working hours. We think the *878single circumstance of irregular work hours is obviously insufficient to bring the claimant in this case within the rule in Bowen, the rationale of which is succinctly stated at page 709 of the opinion:
“ ‘ * * * Service in extra hours or on special errands has an element of distinction which the employer may recognize by agreeing that such service shall commence when the employee leaves his home on the duty assigned to him and shall continue until his return. An agreement to that effect may be either express or be shown by the course of business. In such case the hazards of the journey may properly be regarded as hazards of the service, and hence within the purview of the Compensation Act.’ ” (Quoting Voehl v. Ind. Ins. Co., 288 U.S. 162, 53 S.Ct. 380, 77 L.Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245.)
We are unable to see how the possession of a key, to be used for the ordinary going and coming of an employee who works irregular hours, can imply any agreement that the employment covers the employee en route to or from his place of employment. Nor is there any reasonable foundation for the theory that the particular mission, a trip by an employee to get her key, was one incidental to her employment in any way other than all acts by which an employee prepares to go to work.
The petition for writ of certiorari is accordingly granted, the order quashed upon authority of the decisions reaffirming the classic going and coming rule in this state,1 and the cause remanded with directions that an order be entered in accordance with this opinion.
THORNAL, C. J, O’CONNELL and SEBRING (Retired), JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eady v. Medical Personnel Pool, 377 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1979)…ng injury will be denied when the errand is insufficiently special in the context of an employee’s nor [*DCCLXXVI] mal hours and duties. The single circumstance of irregular hours is insufficient to award compensation. Everett Ford Company v. Laney, 189 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1966). Therefore, absent other special circumstances, an employee with irregular hours cannot be considered to be on a special errand when he is simply instructed to perform his usual duties at an irregular time. Mrs. Eady’s hours were ordinar…
-
Nikko Gold Coast Cruises v. Gulliford, 448 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1984)…aimant could have left the fees at home that Monday and it would have had the same incidental effect on the operation of the nursery school as if she had forgotten her keys or any other paraphernalia of her employment. See Everett Ford Co. v. Laney, 189 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1966). In addition, the claimant was not paid any additional salary for transporting the fees either in the form of overtime or as transportation reimbursement. The instant case however, differs significantly from Rowe. Gulliford had been taki…
-
D.C. Moore & Sons & Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wadkins, 568 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ermitted to take the keys home in the first place. The employer merely directed him to comply with the business’ policies, and see that the keys were where they belonged before decedent left to go out of town the next day. Everett Ford Co. v. Laney, 189 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1966) is controlling. There the employee arrived at the office, and realized she had forgotten her office key at home. On her way home to get it she was injured in a car accident. The court held the accident was not compensable, noting that the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Voehl v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 288 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1933)
- MRS. Berta M. Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1944)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Day Nursery Ass'n of Duval Cnty. v. Alpha Omega Rowe, 126 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1961)