No. 298 C.D. 2023
OPINION BY: Senior Judge Leavitt / FILED: February 8, 2024
In a Nutshell: Claimant Was Not Furthering The Business Of Employer While Commuting Home In His Own Vehicle From The Equipment Yard Where He Began His Workday.
Claimant worked as a crew leader in Employer’s tree-trimming business. Claimant’s duties included supervising workers, trimming trees, and driving Employer’s trucks to job sites. On October 1, 2021, while driving home in his personal vehicle at the end of his workday, Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained injuries.
Claimant’s petition asserted that he was “a traveling employee with no fixed place of business.”
Claimant testified that each morning, he left his house; drove his personal vehicle to the “yard” where Employer’s trucks were parked; got into one of Employer’s trucks; and drove to the work site. At the end of the workday, he returned to the yard where he picked up his personal vehicle for the drive home.
Employer confirmed Claimant’s testimony that the location of Employer’s yard changed several times a year, depending on the location of the tree trimming jobs. Employer did not have a fixed and permanent yard for its trucks and equipment; the areas designated by Employer as “yards” were leased with the location of each yard dictated by where the tree trimming work was located and only for as long it took to complete their work in that area.
Claimant testified that on the morning of October 1, 2021, his workday followed this above-described routine. He parked his vehicle at Employer’s yard and then began his workday, using Employer’s truck. At 4:00 p.m., he drove the truck back to the yard to pick up his personal vehicle. On his way home, his vehicle was rear ended, causing injuries.
Employer testified that employees are not compensated for their commuting time or expenses.
Employer explained that the location of the yard depends “on the circuit“ they are “working on at the area.“ Since 2018, Employer had used approximately six different yards.
The Court concluded that Claimant was not a traveling employee at the time of his injuries. They noted that Claimant drove his personal vehicle, not employer‘s vehicle, to and from his home, and that his workday started at Employer‘s yard, not his home. Further, the Court commented that there was no evidence showing that Claimant was furthering the business of his employer while commuting home in his own vehicle from the yard where he began his workday. Accordingly, concluded the Court, Claimant was not acting in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured in a motor vehicle accident on his way home from work.
If you would like further information or have any questions regarding the information contained in this article, please contact, Kelly M. Davis, Esquire, at kdavis@vaughanbaio.com or by phone at (717)-980-3700.
