Taylor v. Ewing
70 A.2d 456, 166 Pa. Super. 21, 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 330 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee remains in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes when injured while performing an incidental task outside of their normal duties and off the employer's business premises, provided the employer gave a direct order to perform that task.
Facts:
- Defendant was an automobile dealer who employed Claimant as a general utility man.
- Claimant's customary duties included cleaning the offices, showroom, and garage, and servicing cars.
- On July 10, 1947, during a lull in his regular duties, Defendant directed Claimant to go to Defendant's private home and cut the grass with Defendant's power lawn mower.
- While at the Defendant's home, Claimant attempted to adjust the belt on the mower as Defendant had pointed out.
- In the process of adjusting the mower, Claimant accidentally injured the index finger of his right hand.
- The injury was severe enough to require the amputation of a portion of the finger.
Procedural Posture:
- Claimant filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits.
- The workmen's compensation authorities made an award to the Claimant.
- Defendant's insurance carrier, the appellant, appealed the decision to the Court of Common Pleas.
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the award and entered a judgment in favor of the Claimant.
- Defendant's insurance carrier appealed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by an employee while performing a personal task for their employer at the employer's private residence, at the employer's direct command, occur within the course of employment for the purposes of a business workmen's compensation policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Superior Court of Pennsylvania (per curiam)
Yes. An injury sustained under these circumstances occurs within the course of employment. An employer cannot direct an employee to perform a service for the employer's benefit and then argue the service was not in the course of employment. The court reasoned that the employment relationship is what placed the claimant at the location of the injury, working under the direct control and command of the employer. The general employment relationship controls, and an employee does not step in and out of employment with every changing task. The task was merely incidental to the main employment, not a separate contract for domestic service, and the existence of a separate personal liability policy for the home was immaterial to the business employment relationship covered by the appellant's policy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of the 'course of employment' doctrine, emphasizing the power dynamic inherent in the employer-employee relationship. It establishes that an employer's specific command can bring an otherwise personal or non-business-related task within the scope of employment. This precedent makes it difficult for employers and their insurers to deny workers' compensation claims for injuries sustained while an employee follows a direct order, even if that order deviates from the employee's typical job description or work location. The ruling protects employees who might feel compelled to perform such tasks to maintain their job.
