Title: Ex parte Hospice Family Care.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1150995
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 2, 2016

09/02/2016
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2016
____________________
1150995
____________________
Ex parte Hospice Family Care
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
(In re: Hospice Family Care
v.
Joseph Allen, dependent spouse of Suzanne Sharp Allen,
deceased)
(Madison Circuit Court, CV-14-900537;
Court of Civil Appeals, 2140861)
BRYAN, Justice.
1150995
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
2
1150995
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
As set out in more detail in the opinion of the Court of
Civil Appeals, Hospice Family Care v. Allen, [Ms. 2140861,
June 10, 2016] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2016), one of
the issues in this case is the applicability of the Alabama
Workers' Compensation Act, §-25-5-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975
("the Act"), to a wrongful-death claim arising out of the
death of Suzanne Sharp Allen as a result of an automobile
accident.  I would grant the writ because I believe there is
a probability of merit in the argument of Allen's employer,
Hospice Family Care, that, under the "going and coming" rule,
there was no legal causation.   
1
Allen's primary purpose in driving her car at the time of
the accident was to go home in the afternoon, after running a
personal errand to the drugstore, following the completion of
visits by her to the homes of hospice patients.  It is true
that Allen typically interrupted her at-home activities and
resumed her work at some point after arriving home by calling
Under the "going and coming" rule, accidents occurring
1
while a worker is traveling on a public road to or from work
generally fall outside the course of the employment.  E.g.,
McDaniel v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., 61 So. 3d
1091, 1093 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
3
1150995
in certain information to her employer and electronically
transcribing and transmitting certain medical information
regarding each patient she had seen that day.  It appears to
me, however, that, until she engaged in such activities, she
was simply "on her way home from work" or "at home from work." 
And I do not see that the exception recognized by the Court of
Civil Appeals in Tucker v. Die-Matic Tool Co., 652 So. 2d 263
(Ala. Civ. App. 1994) -- when an employee, during his or her
travel to and from work, is engaged in some duty for his or
her employer -- applies.
4