Davaut v. University of South Carolina
418 S.C. 627
| S.C. | 2016Background
- Nathalie Davaut, a USC Lancaster professor, was struck by a vehicle crossing Hubbard Drive while walking from the campus library to an on-campus parking lot after work.
- The street and crosswalk are owned/maintained by the City of Lancaster; the library and parking lot are university property.
- Respondents (University and insurer) denied workers' compensation benefits relying on the going-and-coming rule because the injury occurred on a public street.
- A single commissioner, then the Commission appellate panel, and the Court of Appeals upheld denial, relying on Howell v. Pacific Columbia Mills.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, framed the issue as whether the "divided premises" rule applies when an employee travels a direct, reasonably necessary route between two portions of employer property separated by a public way.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employee injured while crossing a public street between two portions of employer property is in the course of employment for workers' compensation | Davaut: she had already reached employer premises and was traveling a reasonably necessary/direct route between employer-controlled areas, so the injury is compensable under a divided premises rule | Respondents: going-and-coming rule controls; Howell precludes coverage because injury occurred off employer property on a public street | Court: Adopts the divided premises rule — employee remains in course of employment when traveling a reasonably necessary and direct route between portions of employer premises, so Davaut's injury is compensable; remands for benefits determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Pacific Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 354 S.E.2d 384 (S.C. 1987) (applied going-and-coming rule where claimant was injured on public street before entering employer parking)
- Williams v. S.C. State Hosp., 245 S.C. 377, 140 S.E.2d 601 (S.C. 1965) (recognized employer premises can include proximate areas used in passing to/from work)
- Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms, 244 S.C. 6, 135 S.E.2d 321 (S.C. 1964) (enumerated exceptions to going-and-coming rule)
- Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1928) (premises-of-another may be treated as part of employer premises where in practical effect part of employer's property)
- Epler v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 393 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 1978) (adopts divided premises rule; awards compensation for injury crossing public road between plant and employer parking)
- Copeland v. Leaf, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. 1992) (holds employees crossing public way between employer facility and parking on direct route are entitled to benefits)