 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haywood v. Dugal10/31/2000
other meals were at the employee's expense. Employees were not paid any wages or salary for attendance at the conference.
The plaintiffs and Dugal agreed to travel in Dugal's vehicle, a Lincoln Town Car, because it was a large automobile that could accommodate them all. School Food compensated Dugal for use of her vehicle.
The accident occurred on Interstate Highway 59 near McComb, Mississippi. Plaintiffs were treated at a nearby hospital following the accident. Pat Farris, director of food services for School Food, came to the hospital to assist in facilitating plaintiffs' care.
Farris and Cecily Boudreaux, the School Food personnel administrator, determined that the matter should be handled as a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiffs were paid five days' full pay, which Boudreaux said is a routine procedure not required by law that is employed by School Food on worker's compensation claims. Subsequently plaintiffs were paid weekly compensation benefits and their medical expenses were covered.
Applying the law to these facts, we conclude the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiffs were not in the course and scope of their employment. The accident did not take place on the workplace premises or during working hours. It occurred on a highway in Mississippi during the summer hiatus, when the school was closed and the cafeteria employees were not working. Plaintiffs' attendance at the conference was discretionary, attendance was not a condition for maintaining their job status, and they were not to be paid for attendance. Plaintiffs' employment did not place them at a higher risk of highway travel accidents than other travelers on that day.
We distinguish the case of Bolton v. Tulane University of Louisiana, 96-1246 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/29/97), 692 So.2d 1113, 1116, writ denied, 97-1229 (La. 9/26/97), 701 So.2d 982, on which appellants rely. In that case, the plaintiff's travel during which she was injured was in pursuit was one of her most important job duties, recruitment of new players for a university athletic team. Here, in contrast, plaintiffs were pursuing education which could help them in their work, but which was not a necessary part of it. Their attendance was encouraged but was strictly optional. The risk which caused the accident did not arise out of plaintiffs' employment because attendance at the conference and activities during it were not part of their duties, nor were they on a mission for their employer's interests.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments on appeal. The matter is remanded for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal are assessed equally among the appellants.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|