A published Court of Appeal case has really extended the concept of the going and coming rule without addressing it

• Posted By: Harvey Brown
• October 1, 2013

The employee left the office at the end of the work day and began driving in the direction of home. She decided on the way to stop for a frozen yogurt and take a yoga class. She deviated from her home direction and made a left turn into the yogurt shop. She ran into a motorcycle injuring the driver. The driver brought an action against her and her employer. The trial court granted summary judgment releasing the employer from liability. The appellate court reversed.

The appellate court indicated the employer required the employee to use her personal vehicle to travel to and from the office and make other work-related trips throughout the day. They indicated that the planned stops for frozen yogurt and a yoga class did not change the incidental benefit to the employer of the employee using her personal vehicle to travel to and from the office and other destinations. The planned stops did not constitute an unforeseen, substantial departure from the employee’s commute. They indicated this was a foreseeable, minor deviation. Finally, the planned stops were not so unusual that it would be unfair to include the resulting loss among the other costs of the employers doing business.

Case: Morardi V Marsh

• Posted In: Technicalities, Uncategorized, Work Injury