You Be the Judge

Was Motorcycle Accident Within Course of Employment?

Questions of compensability arise when an accident takes the life of an employee who sometimes used his motorcycle for business errands.
By: | February 5, 2016

A superintendent of the parks and recreation department for the City of Spartanburg died in a motorcycle accident while on his way from his mother’s home to one of the city’s recreational centers. The city’s aquatics director had called the superintendent and asked him to meet her at the city’s swim center to sign some forms and retrieve a key from the department’s recreational center. The aquatics director said that the superintendent told her he was going directly to the recreational center to get the key and then going to the swim center.

The superintendent’s supervisor said the superintendent’s job duties involved traveling between the various recreational centers and parks. The supervisor said it was not unusual for the superintendent to retrieve keys and sign forms.

The superintendent’s mother said that he went to her home to pick up his motorcycle, which he stored at her home. While he was at her home, he had two business-related telephone calls. When he left, he told her he was on his way to work.

The superintendent’s widow sought workers’ compensation benefits. The single commissioner concluded that the superintendent did not suffer a compensable injury because the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as he was not working at the time of the accident. The appellate panel affirmed the single commissioner’s findings. The widow appealed.

Was the commissioner correct in denying benefits for the superintendent’s death?

  • A. Yes. The superintendent’s accident did not fall within an exception to the going and coming rule.
  • B. No. The superintendent was performing a task given to him by the aquatics director that was of value to the city.
  • C. No. The superintendent was embarking on an errand to retrieve a key for the aquatics director.

How the Court Ruled

B is incorrect. The court found that the duty or task exception to the going and coming rule did not apply. The primary purpose of the superintendent’s travel was a personal objective to travel to the recreational center when he performed his work. The court pointed out that the superintendent was not charged with any work-related duties at the time of the accident.

C is incorrect. The court found that the special errand exception to the going and coming rule did not apply. The superintendent was on his way to work to perform his typical job duties of retrieving keys and signing forms, and he did not perform a special errand by driving to the swim center.

A is correct. In Wofford v. City of Spartanburg, No. 5369 (S.C. Ct. App. 12/09/15), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the superintendent’s death in a motorcycle accident did not occur within the course and scope of his employment.

Generally, an employee going to or coming from the place where he works is not engaged in performing a service growing out of and incidental to his employment, and therefore, an injury from an accident at such time does not arise out of and in the course of employment. Here, the court found that no exception to the going and coming rule applied.

Editor’s note: This feature is not intended as instructional material or to replace legal advice.

Christina Lumbreras is a Legal Editor for Workers' Compensation Report, a publication of our parent company, LRP Publications. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance