 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thayer v. State11/14/2002
r of public transportation would be entitled to recover. The record does not show whether Thayer actually paid anything at all for her ride.
Proof that an employee paid for the ride to work does not take the injury out of the realm of "arising out of and in the course of employment." The mere fact that an employee pays a fare for the transportation does not convert the employee into a passenger for hire with all the legal rights attendant such a person. See Neyland v. Maryland Cas. Co., 28 So. 2d 351, 353 (La. Ct. App. 1946). The essential character of the employee's status survives even after paying a fare. Id. The employer's provision of transportation does not depend on the payment of a fee for the ride, but solely on a person's status as an employee. Id. at 354-55; Mark A. Rothstein, Employment Law § 6.7, at ___ (2d ed. 1999) (citing Peski v. Todd & Brown, Inc. 158 F.2d 59 (7th Cir. 1946); Neyland, 28 So. 2d at 351). Consideration for the transportation was not simply the payment of money, but the performance of work for the employer. Neyland, 28 So. 2d at 355. It is reasonable to infer that because the ride depended upon the fact of employment, it was also incidental to it. See Iowa Code § 85.61(7) (employer responsible for injuries to an employee caused by dangers incident to employment).
The employer-provided-conveyance exception is based on the awareness that, in certain situations, both the employer and the employee derive mutual benefit from the provision of travel incident to employment. Lassabe v. Simmons Drilling, Inc., 743 P.2d 568, 570 (Mont. 1987). The only purpose of Thayer's trip was to go to the University of Iowa-the site of her employment-in the van furnished by her employer, all to the benefit of her employer. See, e.g., Receveur Const. Co./Realm, Inc. v. Rogers, 958 S.W.2d 18, 21 (Ky. 1997) (though employer-provided conveyance was for employee's convenience, it was primarily of benefit to employer and workers' compensation benefits applied).
The fact that an employee paid a fare or did not pay a fare is not determinative, in part, because the employer is not providing transportation for employees out of a desire to make a profit from the operation of the conveyance. See Neyland, 28 So. 2d at 354. Rather, the employer operates such a program for other reasons not motivated by the desire to see a return from the transportation program. For instance, an employer may provide transportation for employees to and from work through the necessity of obtaining and retaining employees. Id. An employer may also do so in the interests of energy conservation or simply to assist employees in their commute. Croteau-Robinson v. Merrill Trust/Fleet Bank, 669 A.2d 763, 766 (Me. 1996). Here, the vanpool benefited the University by improving employee recruitment and retention and by reducing parking congestion on campus.
Whether the ride was merely gratuitous or contractual incident to employment, while relevant, is not determinative. The rationale behind the going-and-coming rule is that "the risks of employment continue throughout the journey" and because "the employer is in control of those risks by providing transportation, the employee is considered to be within the course of employment." Hansen v. Estate of Harvey, 806 P.2d 426, 431 (Idaho 1991) (emphasis added). Payment of a fee is not determinative-control is the key.
Thayer was riding in a van provided by the University, her employer, and driven by a co-employee. The University had sole control of the vanpool program. Thayer and the other riders were on their way to work when the accident happened. As such we find Thayer's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment pursuant to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|