Opinion ID: 2166955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Course of Employment Incidental Preparatory Actions

Text: The remaining question before this Court is whether the Board was legally correct in concluding that Tickles' injury was not within the course of her employment, based on the fact that the accident occurred before her workday had begun. In the course of employment relates to the time, place and circumstances of the injury. Storm v. Karl-Mil, Inc. By Home Ins. Co., Del.Supr., 460 A.2d 519, 521 (1983). Arising out of the employment refers to the origin and cause of the injury. Id. at 521. An essential causal relationship between the employment and the injury is unnecessary. Id. Therefore, the employee does not have to be injured during a job-related activity to be eligible for worker's compensation benefits. The general rule is that a reasonable interval before working hours is in the course of employment, while the employee is on the premises engaged in preparatory or incidental acts. 2 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 21.60(a), at 5-45 (1997). Other jurisdictions have construed incidental acts, including eating, drinking, smoking, seeking toilet facilities and seeking fresh air, coolness or warmth, to be in the course of employment. Carter v. Volunteer Apparel, Inc., Tenn.Supr., 833 S.W.2d 492, 495 (1992), 2 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, §§ 21.10-21.53, at 5-5 to 5-44 (1997). The general rule has been recognized in Delaware. Rose v. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Center Properties, Inc., Del.Super., 668 A.2d 782, 788 (1995). In Rose, the employee arrived at her employer's parking lot approximately one hour early, with the express purpose of parking and proceeding directly into the break room to wait for the beginning of her shift. The employee testified that in the past she has arrived at work early and used the break room to eat her lunch or read the paper. In Rose, it was determined that such acts constitute reasonably necessary acts of personal comfort that are incident to employment. The ultimate holding in Rose was that when the employee arrived in the parking lot, she was acting incident to the upcoming work day and, therefore, her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. In this case, the only ATM provided by PNC exclusively for its employees was in Building 103. That ATM could be accessed by PNC employees only using their employee identification cards. Tickles used the ATM on PNC's premises within a reasonable period prior to her scheduled starting time and in preparation for her workday. That conduct falls within the general rule that reasonably necessary acts of personal convenience or comfort that take place on the employer's premises, in preparation or anticipation of the workday, are incident to employment.