 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roman v. Sears4/27/2005
only when the work is done at the employer's request or direction-not when it is merely encouraged or allowed by the employer. (E.g., Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 262 [on summary judgment, special errand exception held not to apply to employee carpooling with co-worker, as carpooling arrangement was only encouraged by and not directed by employer]; Blackman v. Great American First Savings Bank, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 602-603 [on summary judgment, special errand exception held not to apply to employee traveling to attend college classes under employer's educational assistance program, because "while this program was available and Great American may have encouraged qualified employees to participate, employees were under no specific order or direct request to do so"]; Munyon v. Ole's, Inc. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 697, 704, 706 [on summary judgment, special errand exception held not to apply to employee on her way home after picking up her paycheck on her day off, as the employee was neither required nor compelled to pick up her check that day and the availability of the check "does not convert that circumstance to an invitation to engage in a special errand for the benefit of the employer"]; cf. Tognazzini v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist., supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1058-1059 [substantial evidence supported determination that employee was not acting within course and scope of employment when returning from being fingerprinted, where fingerprinting was required by the employer but the employee had the discretion to determine when, where and how to fulfill the requirement].)
The cases relied on by appellants are readily distinguishable, as they involve circumstances where the special errand exception applied because the employee was acting at the employer's direction at the time an injury occurred. For example, in Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1419, the court held that the special errand exception applied to provide compensation for an employee injured in a motorcycle accident that occurred when an employee went home from work to change clothes to attend a trade show. The court premised its holding on the fact that the employee made the trip home at his employer's request: "Since applicant wore work clothing on the employer's premises and the employer required he wear a coat to the trade show, it was necessary for him to return home to change his clothing for the show. The employer, furthermore, told applicant he would pick applicant up at his home to drive him to the trade show. Thus, applicant's trip was undertaken at the employer's request and was for the benefit of the employer." (Id. at pp. 1424-1425; accord, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 537 [court applied special errand exception to award compensation to employee injured on his way home after helping to complete semi-annual grocery inventory, reasoning that "the employee's extra duty was at the employer's request and satisfied an important and out-of-the-ordinary business need"]; McGinty v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 280, 282, 283 [court applied special errand exception to award compensation to employee injured on his way home from a monthly sales dinner, where the employee "under the terms of his employment was compelled to attend the monthly dinner"].)
Appellants also rely on O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 25. But that case addressed the distinctly different question of whether an employee had abandoned his special errand in favor of pursuing a personal objective at the time an injury occurred. There, a McDonald's employee participated, without compensation, in a compa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|