Whitworth v. Window World, Inc., 2008 S.C. LEXIS 125 (April 28, 2008)
Appellant’s injury caused by automobile crash while he was on the way to work did not fall within an exception to the “going and coming” rule and was not a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Part of Whitworth’s job with Window World required the use of a “breaker” tool for the installation of windows. Whitworth voluntarily went to borrow a breaker from his brother’s house because Window World’s breaker was unavailable. That morning, after loading the breaker onto his truck and while he was on his way to the jobsite, Whitworth was injured in a car accident.
Normally, injuries that occur when an employee is going to or coming from work (the “going and coming rule”) are not compensable. Whitworth claimed Worker’s Compensation benefits under the “duty or task” exception to the “going and coming rule.” The single Commissioner denied benefits and the Appellate Panel and Circuit Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Whitworth was charged with the “duty or task” of transporting the breaker to the jobsite. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that Whitworth failed to prove that he was charged with a work-related duty or task as set forth in the exception to the going and coming rule. The mere transportation of the breaker, a tool of the trade, did not necessarily transform the event into a work-related duty or task.
Whitworth also asked the Supreme Court to adopt the “required vehicle rule,” which states that a trip to and from work falls within the course of employment if the employee is required by the employer to bring his own car for use during the workday. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the “required vehicle rule” on the set of facts presented in Whitworth’s case.
