Opinion ID: 6317125
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Service To the Employer Exception Applies

Text: While the applicability of the traveling employee exception alone is sufficient to uphold the ALJ’s decision and award, the ALJ, Board and Court of Appeals each addressed the service to the employer exception, determining also that Ellison was providing a service to Whitaker Concrete when injured. In Fortney v. Airtrain Airways, 319 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Ky. 2010), the Court explained this exception to the going and coming rule: The rule excluding injuries that occur off the employer's premises, during travel between work and home, does not apply if the journey is part of the service for which the worker is employed or otherwise benefits the employer. As noted, we will only reverse the ALJ if this finding was not supported by substantial evidence and is thus erroneous as a matter of law. Francis, 708 S.W.2d at 643. The ALJ determined that Ellison’s travel was clearly a service to Whitaker Concrete because by traveling together, Whitaker Concrete was able to ensure that its employees would get to the jobsite on time and as a group. This timeliness was essential because their arrival was coordinated with the arrival of the concrete. According to the ALJ, this type of work appears to be more 8 effectively performed when all workers arrive at the same time as opposed to filtering in one by one. The ALJ likened this case to Receveur, 958 S.W.2d 18, but noted some distinctions. In Receveur, the employee resided in Campbellsville and the employer’s office was in Louisville. The employee traveled in a company-issued vehicle to various remote jobsites around the region. Id. He was not compensated for his time traveling from home to the office, but he was paid for any travel time between the office and a jobsite. Id. After working at a jobsite in Clarksville, Indiana the employee went back to the employer’s office to unload rubbish. Id. at 19. While driving home the employee was involved in a fatal accident. Id. In holding his injuries compensable, the Court focused on the benefit the employer received generally because the employee’s use of the company truck allowed the employee to better perform his job requirements. Id. at 21. Additionally, the use of the company truck as transportation between the employee’s home and jobsite allowed the employee to begin his duties earlier and to remain productive longer. Id. While the use of the company truck was convenient for the employee, “it was primarily of benefit to the employer.” Id. Ellison did not travel in a company-owned vehicle on the day in question but instead a vehicle owned by Whitaker’s son that was used on the job. Ellison’s employment encompassed traveling to sometimes remote and nonpermanent jobsites in order to pour concrete. His travel from the employer’s premises to various jobsites was a service to the employer and benefitted the 9 employer by furthering its business. Whitaker Concrete employees met at the business to load trucks with tools and equipment before traveling with the equipment to the jobsite. Ellison testified that sometimes when employees met at Whitaker Concrete prior to traveling to a jobsite they would discuss a plan for the day. Six employees met at Whitaker Concrete on the morning of the accident and traveled to the jobsite in Danville in two trucks. Ellison also testified that on the day of the accident he “had to meet at the shop” early that morning and that he seldom drove himself directly to a worksite. Whitaker testified that employees were permitted to drive themselves to the jobsite if they desired, but it is clear that employees routinely met at the shop and rode together. Whitaker Concrete argues that this case is virtually identical to the facts in Brown v. Owsley, 564 S.W.2d 843 (Ky. 1978), in which employees were injured while traveling back to the employer’s premises, their central meeting point, from a jobsite. While Brown and the present case share similarities, the distinguishing fact is that in Brown, the employer had no knowledge and did not acquiesce to the employees carpooling to jobsites. Here, Whitaker Concrete knew that employees met at the company premises and traveled together to jobsites. Whitaker himself met his employees at the shop that morning and traveled with them to the jobsite. He rode in a truck with two of his employees. Reviewing the testimony as a whole, the travel was clearly a service to Whitaker Concrete. Whitaker was abundantly aware of his employees’ travel arrangement and acquiesced to such by providing some vehicles and gas. The 10 testimony of Ellison and Whitaker constitutes substantial evidence that supported the ALJ’s conclusion that this travel arrangement benefitted Whitaker Concrete.