31 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Eady v. Medical Personnel Poolgreen2 sentences2001See also Eady, *944 377 So.2d at 695 ("As a practical matter, the irregularity and suddenness of a call from the employer will almost always qualify it as a special errand exempt from the going and coming rule."); Susan Loverings Figure Salon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). 1998As stated in Eady, 377 So.2d at 696 , compensation will be denied under the going and coming rule where the journey is essentially for personal reasons, as the JCC found in the instant case. | 4 | 10 |
Schoenfelder v. WINN & JORGENSEN, PAgreen2 sentences2000See id. at 136 . 1998Claimant also argues that under Schoenfelder v. Winn & Jorgensen, P.A., 704 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), her travel to Orlando was excepted from the going and coming rule and, therefore, was within the course of her employment. | 2 | 3 |
Sweat v. Allengreen2 sentences1998Going and Coming Rule Under the going and coming rule, "injuries sustained by employees when going to or returning from their regular place of work are not deemed to arise out of and in the course of their employment." Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733 , 200 So. 348, 350 (1941). 1998Going and Coming Rule Under the going and coming rule, "injuries sustained by employees when going to or returning from their regular place of work are not deemed to arise out of and in the course of their employment." Sweat v. Allen, 145 Fla. 733 , 200 So. 348, 350 (1941). | 1 | 3 |
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.green2 sentences2012“The special errand exception includes employees who, at the time of injury, were on a special errand in response to a call from their employers, and is usually characterized by irregularity and suddenness.” Swartz, 788 So.2d at 943 . 2006The dual purpose doctrine is an exception to the going and coming rule and provides that an employer is liable for workers' compensation benefits where an employee is injured during a trip "of a concurrent business and personal motive," "[s]o long as the business purpose is `at least a concurrent cause of the trip.'" Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 788 So.2d 937, 945 (Fla.2001) (citing Cook v. Highway Cas. | 1 | 2 |
Gilbert v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.green1 sentence2006Co., 82 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.1955)); see also Gilbert v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 790 So.2d 1057, 1059-60 (Fla.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Highway Casualty Companygreen1 sentence2006Co., 82 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla.1955)); see also Gilbert v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 790 So.2d 1057, 1059-60 (Fla.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Securex, Inc. v. Coutogreen1 sentence2006See Securex, Inc. v. Couto, 627 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Dennisgreen1 sentence2004The rule is firmly established that the going-and-coming rule does not apply to employees in such category, because they are “deemed to be in continuous conduct of [their] employer’s business including those times when [they are] not actually at work but [are] engaged in such normal and necessary activities as eating and sleeping.” Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Ramirez v. Farishgreen1 sentence2004See Ramirez v. Farish, 855 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (in deciding that claimant’s injuries, suffered in 2000, were compensa-ble because of his status as a traveling employee, the court relied upon a number of cases predating statutory enactments to the going-and-coming and traveling-employee rules, including Leonard); McCormick v. Auditor Gen’l., 772 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing order denying compensability, because claimant, an accountant whose job consisted primarily of conducting field audits in three counties, and who was injured in 1998, while making a one-hour drive from | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. HANDI-MAN TEMP. SERVICES & RISCORPgreen1 sentence2003Servs., 710 So.2d 132, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Bunnam v. Olsten Quality Caregreen1 sentence2000Dunnam v. Olsten Quality Care, 667 So.2d 948, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Standard Distribution Co. v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2000See Standard Distribution Co. v. Johnson, 445 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“Johnson was a traveling employee who was paid for the use of his car on his employer’s business. | 1 | 1 |
Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1998See Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.3d 345 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 94 , 708 P.2d 673 (Cal.1985). 1998See Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.3d 345 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 94 , 708 P.2d 673 (Cal.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Companygreen2 sentences1998"In the course of employment" refers "to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs," Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Co., 138 So.2d 308, 311 (Fla.1962), and "arising out of" refers to "origin or cause." Id. 1998"In the course of employment" refers "to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs," Spivey v. Battaglia Fruit Co., 138 So.2d 308, 311 (Fla.1962), and "arising out of" refers to "origin or cause." Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Claim of Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Seabreeze Industries, Inc. v. Philygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moody v. Baxley
neutral
2 sentences1986Eady, supra at 695 , citing Moody v. Baxley, 158 Fla. 357 , 28 So.2d 325 (1946). 1986Eady, supra at 695 , citing Moody v. Baxley, 158 Fla. 357 , 28 So.2d 325 (1946). | 4 | 1979–1986 |
Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences2003In Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the claimant was employed as a banquet waitress at the Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel. 2000However, this reasoning does not comport with a proper application of the going and coming rule as delineated in cases such as Electronic Service Clinic v. Barnard, 634 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). | 2 | 2000–2003 |
Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clark
green
2 sentences1996In Clark , this court recognized three notable exceptions to the going and coming rule: “1) special hazards on (the) normal route; 2) travel between two parts of (the) employer’s premises; and 3) (the) area where the injury occurred was actually used by the employer for his purposes.” 498 So.2d at 662 . 1995The going and coming rule, the exception thereto known as the premises rule, and the exceptions to the premises rule are explained in Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied mem., 506 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1987). | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Bowen v. Keen
green
2 sentences1982Accordingly, he concludes that under Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161 , 17 So.2d 706 (1944), compensation is not precluded by the going and coming rule. 1982Accordingly, he concludes that under Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161 , 17 So.2d 706 (1944), compensation is not precluded by the going and coming rule. | 2 | 1973–1982 |
City of Gainesville v. Rodgers
neutral
1 sentence2023City of Gainesville v. Rodgers, 272 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Florida Hosp. v. Garabedian
green
1 sentence2004See Ramirez v. Farish, 855 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (in deciding that claimant’s injuries, suffered in 2000, were compensa-ble because of his status as a traveling employee, the court relied upon a number of cases predating statutory enactments to the going-and-coming and traveling-employee rules, including Leonard); McCormick v. Auditor Gen’l., 772 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing order denying compensability, because claimant, an accountant whose job consisted primarily of conducting field audits in three counties, and who was injured in 1998, while making a one-hour drive from | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McCormick v. State-Auditor General/Division of Risk Management
neutral
1 sentence2004See Ramirez v. Farish, 855 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (in deciding that claimant’s injuries, suffered in 2000, were compensa-ble because of his status as a traveling employee, the court relied upon a number of cases predating statutory enactments to the going-and-coming and traveling-employee rules, including Leonard); McCormick v. Auditor Gen’l., 772 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing order denying compensability, because claimant, an accountant whose job consisted primarily of conducting field audits in three counties, and who was injured in 1998, while making a one-hour drive from | 1 | 2004–2004 |
El Viejo Arco Iris, Inc. v. Luaces
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 226 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
SUSAN LOVERINGS FIG. SALON v. McRorie
green
1 sentence2001See also Eady, *944 377 So.2d at 695 ("As a practical matter, the irregularity and suddenness of a call from the employer will almost always qualify it as a special errand exempt from the going and coming rule."); Susan Loverings Figure Salon v. McRorie, 498 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Electronic Service Clinic v. Barnard
green
1 sentence2000However, this reasoning does not comport with a proper application of the going and coming rule as delineated in cases such as Electronic Service Clinic v. Barnard, 634 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Tampa Airport Hilton Hotel v. Hawkins, 557 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Swartz v. McDonald's Corp.
green
1 sentence2000The JCC concluded, "Since I find the accident to have occurred before her work day was completed, the accident is compensable and is not covered by the going and coming rule." In seeking reversal, the employer argues that this case is governed by the standards set forth in this court's decision in Swartz v. McDonald's Corp., 726 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), rev. granted, 729 So.2d 918 (Fla.1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Glasser v. Youth Shop
green
1 sentence1997We find Glasser v. Youth Shop, 54 So.2d 686 (Fla.1951), distinguishable. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Kash-N-Karry v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1996Kash-N-Karry v. Johnson, 617 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied 629 So.2d 133 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Maas Bros. v. Peo
green
1 sentence1995In contrast, in Maas Brothers v. Peo, 498 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) a different fact situation led to the opposite result. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Krause v. West Lumber Company green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Edens v. New Mexico Health & Social Services Department green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.
neutral
2 sentences1990See Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 645 , 322 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1971); Watson v. American Can Co., 23 A.D.2d 423 , 261 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1965), aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 758 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 683 , 221 N.E.2d 463 (1966). 1990See Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 645 , 322 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1971); Watson v. American Can Co., 23 A.D.2d 423 , 261 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1965), aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 758 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 683 , 221 N.E.2d 463 (1966). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| People v. Eben neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.
neutral
2 sentences1990See Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 645 , 322 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1971); Watson v. American Can Co., 23 A.D.2d 423 , 261 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1965), aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 758 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 683 , 221 N.E.2d 463 (1966). 1990See Flamholtz v. Byrde, Richards & Pound, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 645 , 322 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1971); Watson v. American Can Co., 23 A.D.2d 423 , 261 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1965), aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 758 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 683 , 221 N.E.2d 463 (1966). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Poinciana Village Const. Corp. v. Gallarano green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Feltner v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Southern States Manufacturing Co. v. Wright green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.