 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Custer v. Hartford Insurance Co.8/23/2005
o. App. E.D. 1991)). Hartford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a determination that Custer's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with Hartford. "To be compensable under worker's compensation, an employee's injury must arise out of and in the course of his [or her] employment." Roberts v. Parker-Banks Chevrolet, 58 S.W.3d 66, 69 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). "'The general rule is that an injury is one that 'arises out of' the employment if it is a natural and reasonable incident thereof and it is 'in the course of employment' if the action occurs within a period of employment at a place where the employee may reasonably be fulfilling the duties of employment.'" Clancy v. Armor Elevator Co., 899 S.W.2d 123, 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (quoting Ford v. Bi-State Development Agency, 677 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) (emphasis omitted)). "'These are two separate tests both of which must be met before an employee is entitled to compensation.'" Rogers, 972 S.W.2d at 543 (quoting Mann v. City of Pacific, 860 S.W.2d 12, 15 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) ). "In our determination of whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment, we must consider the particular facts and circumstances of each case." Id.
"In general, 'an employee does not suffer injury arising out of and in the course of employment if the employee is injured while going or journeying to or returning from the place of employment.'" Id. (quoting McClain v. Welsh Co., 748 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988)). "This is true because in most circumstances, 'a trip to or from one's place of work is merely an inevitable circumstance with which every employee is confronted and which ordinarily bears no immediate relation to the actual services to be performed.'" Id. (quoting McClain, 748 S.W.2d at 724.).
"While this is the general rule, the principle may be modified by the particular facts, circumstances and situations resulting in various and varied exceptions in order to accommodate both the employer and the employee." McClain, 748 S.W.2d at 725. "Certain exceptions to the general rule have been clearly delineated by the courts which permit a worker to be entitled to compensation ." Id . " he following exceptions have been recognized by our courts: (1) the 'journey' exception authorizes compensation when an injury suffered by the employee occurs while the employee is traveling for the employer[;] (2) the 'conveyance exception' where the employer furnishes the employee with a vehicle or the employee uses his own vehicle and the employer pays expenses on it when used for business purposes[;] . . . (3) the 'special task' exception whereby the employee performs a special task, service or errand in connection with his employment[;] . . . (4) the exception which authorizes compensation where the duties of the employee entail travel away from the employer's business to obtain parts or supplies for employer." Id . To this list must be added the exception that an injury sustained by an employee while attending or traveling to or from an employer-sponsored social or recreational activity arises out of the course and scope of the employment if the activity benefits the employer's business in some way. Ludwinski v. National Courier, 873 S.W.2d 890, 892-93 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); Graham v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 117 S.W.3d 182, 184-85 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).
We conclude that several of these exceptions are applicable to the facts of the instant appeal and, therefore, the Commission did not err in finding that Custer's injury occurred during the course and scope of his employment. One such exception to the general rule involves employees "whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises." Smith v. Dist
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|