 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. Cardi Corp.5/31/2005
noted that the employer dictated the employee's daily schedule and she had not deviated from that schedule, so the employer could reasonably have expected her to be where the accident occurred. The accident was within the period of employment because it occurred while driving between patients' homes. In satisfying the third criteria of DiLibero, the Court stated:
"Finally, because travel from one patient's home to another was an integral and a necessary part of the employment contract and conferred an added benefit on Aquidneck in pursuing its business, the risk of travel on public roads must be considered a condition incident to Toolin's employment." Toolin v. Aquidneck Island Medical Resource, 668 A.2d 639, 641 (R.I. 1995).
Clearly, the circumstances of the present case are not similar to those of Toolin or DiLibero. The employee urges the panel to conclude that the location of the entrance to the job site off of the high speed lane of the highway creates a special risk to employees working at that site and, therefore, the employer should be responsible for injuries resulting from any accidents which occur while entering the job site. However, we see no difference between this situation and the unfortunate employer whose entrance to the premises requires negotiating a dangerous intersection or cutting across traffic at a blind turn. There is not a sufficient nexus or causal connection between an injury resulting from a motor vehicle accident caused by a third party and the employment under these circumstances to find an exception to the application of the general "going and coming" rule.
Based upon the foregoing, the employee's appeal is denied and dismissed and the decision and decree of the trial judge is affirmed. In accordance with Rule 2.20 of the Rules of Practice of the Workers' Compensation Court, a final decree, copy of which is enclosed, shall be entered on
Rotondi and Bertness, JJ. concur.
Rotondi, J.
Olsson, J.
Bertness, J.
FINAL DECREE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This cause came on to be heard by the Appellate Division upon the appeal of the petitioner/employee and upon consideration thereof, the appeal is denied and dismissed, and it is:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
The findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of this Court entered on March 29, 2004 be, and they hereby are, affirmed.
|