USA Trucks, Inc. v. Jarrell
2016 Ark. App. 484
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- USA Truck, Inc. and Broadspire Services, Inc. appealed a Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that Jarrell’s injury was compensable.
- Jarrell trained as a truck driver, completed orientation, and traveled with a trainer, including a sleep arrangement in the truck to depart early.
- After training in Indiana and Colorado, Jarrell traveled to Memphis for additional training and groceries with the trainer at a Wal-Mart.
- The trainer instructed Jarrell to sleep in the truck so they could leave for Texas early the next morning; Jarrell understood this as an instruction.
- Jarrell awoke, performed a required pretrip inspection, and was injured when stepping from a top bunk into a crock pot of hot water.
- Appellants argued Jarrell was not performing employment services at the time of injury; the ALJ and the Commission upheld compensability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Jarrell performing employment services at injury time? | Jarrell was following trainer instructions to perform a pretrip inspection. | Injury occurred during off-duty time, not while performing employment services. | Yes; injury occurred while performing employment services by following instruction. |
| Does sleeping in the truck for the employer’s benefit render the injury compensable? | Sleeping in the truck was required to enable early departure and thus advanced the employer’s interest. | Sleeping in the truck is not inherently employment service conduct under prior cases. | Affirmed that sleeping in the truck in this context was for the employer’s benefit and part of employment services. |
| How do prior grooming/rest break cases apply to this trainee situation? | The case is distinguishable from Cook and Kinnebrew because Jarrell was a trainee following a trainer’s directives. | Even with a trainer, the injury occurred during routine morning tasks not clearly tied to employment services. | Distinguishable; the facts show Jarrell was performing employment services when injured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Razorback Concrete v. Perkins, 2015 Ark. App. 368, 465 S.W.3d 15 (Ark. App. 2015) (defines course-of-employment inquiry as whether injury occurred while carrying out employer’s purpose or interest)
- Wallace v. W. Fraser South, Inc., 365 Ark. 68, 225 S.W.3d 361 (Ark. 2006) (clarifies 'in the course of employment' and 'employment services' concepts)
- Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. 372, 284 S.W.3d 57 (Ark. 2008) (contextual framework for when injury occurs within employment boundaries)
- Cook v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 88 Ark. App. 86, 194 S.W.3d 794 (Ark. App. 2004) (showering/off-duty grooming not inherently necessary for job)
- Kinnebrew v. Little John’s Truck, Inc., 66 Ark. App. 90, 989 S.W.2d 541 (Ark. App. 1999) (off-duty routine morning grooming not employment services; rest-break context)
- Pifer, not provided in text (not provided) (cited for toilet-use necessity during working hours; distinguishable facts)