 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lorkovic6/1/1994
BR>
Maryland Casualty presents two arguments in support of its contention that the trial court erroneously overturned the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission and granted summary judgment in favor of Lorkovic: (1) the court misconstrued the "coming and going" rule, and (2) it improperly resolved material facts in dispute.
I
The Maryland Workers' Compensation Act provides benefits to persons who suffer "accidental injury that arises out of and in the course of employment." MD. LABOR & EMPL. CODE ANN. § 9-101(b)(1) (1991) [hereinafter the "Act"]. Injuries incurred by an employee while going to or returning from the work place do not ordinarily arise out of and in the course of employment, and are therefore not compensable under the Act. E.g., Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane v. Tornillo, 329 Md. 40, 44, 617 A.2d 572 (1993); Wiley Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 280 Md. 200, 206, 373 A.2d 613 (1977); Saylor v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 258 Md. 605, 607-08, 267 A.2d 81 (1970). This general rule has been termed the "going and coming rule." Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44. The Court of Appeals has "engrafted" onto the going and coming rule several exceptions:
1.
"Where the employer furnishes the employee free transportation to and from work, the employee is deemed to be on duty, and an injury sustained by the employee during such transportation arises out of and in the course of employment. Tavel v. Bechtel Corp., 242 Md. 299, 219 A.2d 43 (1966); Rumple v. Henry H. Meyer Co., 208 Md. 350, 357, 118 A.2d 486 (1955).
2.
"Compensation may also be properly awarded where the employee is injured while traveling along or across a public road between two portions of the employer 's premises. Wiley Mfg., 280 Md. at 206; Proctor-Silex v. DeBrick, 253 Md. 477, 482, 252 A.2d 800 (1969).
3.
"The 'proximity' exception allows compensation for an injury sustained off-premises, but while the employee is exposed to a peculiar or abnormal degree to a danger which is annexed as a risk incident to the employment. Pariser Bakery v. Koontz, 239 Md. 586, 591, 212 A.2d 324 (1965); see Maryland Paper Products Co. v. Judson, 215 Md. 577, 584-588, 139 A.2d 219 (1958).
4.
"Injuries incurred while the employee travels to or from work in performing a special mission or errand for the employer are likewise compensable. Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. Perry, 165 Md. 191, 199, 167 A. 51 (1933); see Director of Finance v. Alford, 270 Md. 355, 359-364, 311 A.2d 412 (1973)."
Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44.
5.
The "own-conveyance" exception applies where the employee is required to furnish his/her own vehicle for work and is injured while driving to or from the job.
Id. at 47.
In the present case, a review of each exception is not required because Lorkovic asserts only that the "free transportation" and "own-conveyance" exceptions are applicable .
As expected, appellants assert that none of the applicable exceptions apply. We shall conclude that this case comes within the free transportation exception.
A
Judge Wilner (now Chief Judge), speaking for the Court, assiduously reviewed the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|