Opinion ID: 1097522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the death of Mrs. Wilson arise out of and in the course and scope of her employment with WDAM?

Text: As a general rule, hazards encountered by an employee going to or returning from his regular place of work, off the employer's premises, are not incident to employment, do not arise therefrom, and are not compensable. Stepney v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc., 416 So.2d 963 (Miss. 1982); Aetna Finance Co. v. Bourgoin, 252 Miss. 852, 174 So.2d 495 (1965); Wallace v. Copiah County Lumber Co., 223 Miss. 90, 77 So.2d 316 (1955). An employee who claims an exception to the general rule must prove that he comes within one of the exceptions. Aetna Finance Company, 252 Miss. at 858, 174 So.2d at 497. A partial list of exceptions to the general rule includes (1) where the employer furnishes the means of transportation, or remunerates the employee; or (2) where the employee performs some duty in connection with his employment at home... . Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 224 Miss. 256, 260, 79 So.2d 825, 826 (1955). Bob Ford testified that many times reporters for WDAM write their stories at home, meet the camera crew at the location for filming, and only then make a trip to the station to edit the video tape. Mr. Ford testified that reporters spend only 20 percent of their time at the station and many times reporters would not even arrive at the station until 3:00 p.m. It can easily be seen that it would be a waste of time for a reporter to drive to the station, write a story, drive back into town to film the story, and then drive back out to the station to edit the video tape. Commenting on the convenience of the reporter's doing work at home Mr. Ford testified, [T]he station is located far removed from either of our primary towns. So as a practical matter, all of the reporters do a certain amount of their work from their home. In Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation §§ 18.32 (1985), Professor Larson addresses the situation under analysis as follows: When reliance is placed upon the status of the home as a place of employment generally, instead of or in addition to the existence of a specific work assignment at the end of the particular homeward trip, three principal indicia may be looked for: the quantity and regularity of work performed at home; the continuing presence of work equipment at home; and special circumstances of the particular employment that make it necessary and not merely personally convenient to work at home. ..... If work is done at home for the employee's convenience, the going and coming trip is not a business trip within the dual purpose rule, since serving the employee's own convenience in selecting an off-premises place in which to do the work is a personal and not a business purpose. The time not wasted by Mrs. Wilson in a needless drive to and from the station would seem to inure to the benefit of both the station and the reporter. Therefore, the Court finds the work done by Mrs. Wilson at her home was for the mutual convenience of Mrs. Wilson and her employer. The administrative judge found from the testimony of David Wilson and Mrs. Jean Freeman that Cynthia Wilson had worked on a story at home on the morning of her death. That finding was affirmed by the full Commission and by the Circuit Court of Jones County. Based partially on that finding, all three forums agreed that Mrs. Wilson's death arose out of and in the scope of her employment with WDAM. This Court affirms those decisions. In so holding, the Court finds that under the facts of this case the death of Mrs. Wilson should be compensated as an exception to the going and coming rule.