They are correct in this case. Now, if the accident occurred during the course of employment and during work hours, it might have been a different story.
Unless there is more to this story elsewhere I’m no so sure I agree with the ruling. Example being: Let’s say she lived right across the street from her employer. Now she is driving 10 miles to get to the other store to drop off the manual. So driving back, let’s say five miles so far, she’s in an accident. I would still think workcomp because she wouldn’t be that far from home, if it wasn’t for making the delivery. Now if she was one block from home and it happened, I could see the argument.
Excellent points, Baxtor. Without knowing the particulars of where these locations were relative to her home, it’s difficult to say she should or should not have received WC benefits. At first blush it looks like the decision was correct, but if reality was similar to your 10-mile double-back example, I’d say the decision was wrong.
I agree. If the accident had occurred just prior to dropping off the manual, it would have been in course and scope. Once the errand was done, she was off work and commuting home.
I wonder what the company’s policy is for mileage reimbursement when an employee uses their own vehicle in this manner. In my opinion, if the reimbursement would have applied to the miles she was driving under during the accident, one would have to assume that the vehicle was being used for business purposes at the time and, as such, being used by an employee in the course of her employment.
They are correct in this case. Now, if the accident occurred during the course of employment and during work hours, it might have been a different story.
Unless there is more to this story elsewhere I’m no so sure I agree with the ruling. Example being: Let’s say she lived right across the street from her employer. Now she is driving 10 miles to get to the other store to drop off the manual. So driving back, let’s say five miles so far, she’s in an accident. I would still think workcomp because she wouldn’t be that far from home, if it wasn’t for making the delivery. Now if she was one block from home and it happened, I could see the argument.
Excellent points, Baxtor. Without knowing the particulars of where these locations were relative to her home, it’s difficult to say she should or should not have received WC benefits. At first blush it looks like the decision was correct, but if reality was similar to your 10-mile double-back example, I’d say the decision was wrong.
I agree. If the accident had occurred just prior to dropping off the manual, it would have been in course and scope. Once the errand was done, she was off work and commuting home.
I wonder what the company’s policy is for mileage reimbursement when an employee uses their own vehicle in this manner. In my opinion, if the reimbursement would have applied to the miles she was driving under during the accident, one would have to assume that the vehicle was being used for business purposes at the time and, as such, being used by an employee in the course of her employment.