Court Finds Death on Business Trip Outside the Course and Scope of Employment
The Dallas Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s ruling that found an injured worker’s death from a motor vehicle, while on a business trip, to be outside the course and scope of employment. In Pinkus v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (No. 05-14-00892-CV, November 5, 2015) the majority concluded that the employee’s fatal motor vehicle accident did not originate in the business of the employer. A concurring justice wrote that while he agreed with the result that the majority reached, he would affirm on the basis of the dual purpose rule.
The decedent had traveled to Dallas on a business trip and had worked a full business day at an office near the hotel at which he was staying. His transportation, lodging, and reasonable meal expenses were paid by his employer. After working normal business hours at his employer’s Dallas office, the decedent ceased working at around 5:42 p.m. He had not obtained prior approval for a business or client entertainment meal, and his calendar did not reflect any work-related appointment that evening.
The summary-judgment evidence was uncontroverted that during the evening of January 9, 2012, the decedent was on personal time and free to spend the evening as he saw fit. The decedent made plans with his son, Brett, to have a personal, social dinner together. The plans had not been confirmed as to whether they were to meet at Brett’s home or the Lovers Pizza location on Mockingbird Lane near Brett’s home. The Lovers Pizza location at which the decedent and Brett planned to eat was chosen for Brett’s convenience due to the proximity of the restaurant to Brett’s home.
The decedent sustained serious injury in a motor vehicle accident at 6:43 p.m. The accident location is between the Lovers Pizza restaurant where the decedent and Brett planned to eat and Brett’s home; it is four-tenths of a mile east of Lovers Pizza and one-half mile southwest of Brett’s home. The accident occurred eleven miles from the Dallas business office at which the decedent had been working.
The Division found the claim to be compensable. Hartford filed suit for judicial review and the trial court granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. The Pinkus beneficiaries appealed. The court affirmed.
Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Barbara, Ron’s travel at the time of the accident was to accommodate a personal visit and meal with his son; Ron’s business trip to Dallas merely placed him in a position to take advantage of an opportunity for a “distinct departure” on a “personal errand.” . . . the summary judgment evidence establishes there is no genuine issue of material fact that Ron’s activity at the time of his injury did not originate in and was not in furtherance of his employer’s business affairs.
* * * * *
Because we have concluded the summary judgment evidence establishes Ron was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury, we reach neither the second step of the analysis concerning applicability of the dual purpose travel exclusion from “course and scope of employment” nor the third step of the analysis concerning applicability of an exception to that exclusion.
The concurring justice wrote:
Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the underlying judgment should be affirmed, I cannot agree with the majority’s determination that the evidence in this case shows a distinct departure from the business purpose of the trip.
* * *
The fact that Ron was to meet his son for dinner does not remove that activity from the accepted course and scope of Ron’s employment. However, it does trigger an analysis under the dual purpose doctrine found in section 401.011(12)(B).
* * *
There is no doubt that Ron’s travel to the place of injury was for a dual purpose, but there is no evidence establishing that he would have traveled to the place of injury without the personal purpose and would not have traveled there without the business purpose. In the absence of such evidence, no exception to the dual purpose exclusion has been shown. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.
FOLIO
