69 So. 3d 1065
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Employee claimant was injured when a tow truck dragged his car while he attempted to retrieve personal items from the repossessed vehicle in the employer's parking lot.
- The accident occurred in the course and scope of employment, but the central issue was whether it arose out of work performed under Florida Statutes § 440.09 (2008).
- Employer/carrier appeals a non-final order adjudicating compensability in claimant's favor.
- Claimant's activity at the time was personal: retrieving personal items not work-related; he was in a parking lot used exclusively by the employer and monitored by security.
- The court analyzed whether the injury arose out of employment, or from personal/neutral risks imported into the workplace, and whether any exceptions (premises rule, personal comfort, or emergency) apply.
- The First District reversed, holding the injury did not arise out of work performed and therefore was not compensable under chapter 440.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the injury arise out of work performed? | Hamlin argues injury arose out of employment on employer's premises during a paid break/incident tied to work. | Sentry argues injury resulted from a purely personal mission imported to the workplace and not work-related. | No; injury did not arise out of work performed. |
| Does the paid-break context render the injury compensable under the premises rule or personal comfort? | Hamlin contends the break and work-related presence permit compensability under personal comfort or premises rules. | Sentry contends the activity was purely personal and not a work-related risk. | Not compensable; personal comfort doctrine not satisfied. |
| Does the emergency (tipsy coachman) rule apply to bring the injury within § 440.092(3)? | Hamlin invokes emergency exception to include recovery effort as arising from work performed. | Sentry contends there was no objective or subjective emergency; action was not in response to an emergency. | Not applicable; no objectively recognized emergency existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Moore, 196 So. 495 (Fla. 1940) (test: injury arises out of employment if work exposure contributes to risk)
- Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard County, 888 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2004) (work connection test; core concept of 'arising out of')
- Griffith v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 692 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (neutral risks and employment-related harm framework)
- Carnegie v. Pan Am. Linen, 476 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (whether workplace altercation is within course and scope)
- Porter, Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. Porter, 415 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (workplace conflicts; intrinsic work-related risk in the workplace)
- Deutsch v. Heritage Auto. Enter., 939 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("emergency" requiring action under § 440.092(3))
- Bayfront Med. Ctr. v. Harding, 653 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (personal comfort doctrine prerequisites)
- Rodriguez v. Tri-State Carriers, Inc., 792 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (personal errands and work-relatedness)
- Galaida v. AutoZone, Inc., 882 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (personal comfort and work-relatedness analysis)
- Grimes v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 548 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1989) (premises rule; personal risk and employment conditions)