going and coming rule in Maryland

2015That exception, first recognized in Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. Perry, 165 Md. 191 , 167 A. 51 (1933), is as follows: When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the service its

2015That exception, first recognized in Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. Perry, 165 Md. 191 , 167 A. 51 (1933), is as follows: When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the service its

2019App. 355 , 358, 274 A.2d 397 (1971) (employee who reviewed work materials at home and was injured the next morning on a public street upon arriving at her place of work could not rely on the work done at home to recover under the dual-purpose exception to the going and coming rule); see also Fairchild Space Co. v. Baroffio , 77 Md.

2019App. 355, 358 (1971) (employee who reviewed work materials at home and was injured the next morning on a public street upon arriving at her place of work could not rely on the work done at home to recover under the dual-purpose exception to the going and coming rule); see also Fairchild Space Co. v. Baroffio, 77 Md.

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

1998Finally, in Wiley, 280 Md. at 208-16 , 373 A.2d at 617-21 , this Court extensively analyzed the proximity exception to the going and coming rule.

1998Finally, in Wiley, 280 Md. at 208-16 , 373 A.2d at 617-21 , this Court extensively analyzed the proximity exception to the going and coming rule.

2019The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address whether the going and coming rule or the positional-risk test applied to determine whether Mr. Roberts's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. 16 Id. at 606 , 84 A.3d 87 .

2019The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address whether the going and coming rule or the positional-risk test applied to determine whether Mr. Roberts's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. 16 Id. at 606 , 84 A.3d 87 .

2015We shall discuss two of them-the free transportation and the special errand exceptions—infra. The other two are the proximity exception and an exception for employee travel on a public street between two areas of the employer’s premises. 2 Additionally, there is the “own conveyance exception,” which applies when the employer requires the employee to furnish his or her own vehicle for work, see Morris, 339 Md. at 383 , 663 A.2d 578 ; the “employer conveyance exception,” which applies when the employer controls the means of transportation the employee uses to drive to and from work, see Watson v

2015We shall discuss two of them-the free transportation and the special errand exceptions—infra. The other two are the proximity exception and an exception for employee travel on a public street between two areas of the employer’s premises. 2 Additionally, there is the “own conveyance exception,” which applies when the employer requires the employee to furnish his or her own vehicle for work, see Morris, 339 Md. at 383 , 663 A.2d 578 ; the “employer conveyance exception,” which applies when the employer controls the means of transportation the employee uses to drive to and from work, see Watson v

2019Inc , 483 So.2d 1339 , 1342 (Miss. 1986) (applying Larson's test to determine whether employee's home constituted a place of work for purposes of determining whether the employee's injury was compensable as an exception to the going and coming rule); Manzo v. Amalgamated Industries Union Local 76B , 241 N.J.Super. 604 , 575 A.2d 903 , 906-08 (N.J.

2019Inc, 483 So.2d 1339, 1342 (Miss. 1986) (applying Larson’s test to determine whether employee’s home constituted a place of work for purposes of determining whether the employee’s injury was compensable as an exception to the going and coming rule); Manzo v. Amalgamated Industries Union Local 76B, 575 A.2d 903 , 906- 13 Maryland courts have consistently quoted, with approval, Professor Larson’s discussions on various workers’ compensation issues.

2019Each analysis is dependent on resolution of the predicate facts informing place, time, and activity, which, in this case, remain in dispute. 17 The court viewed the injury, in the alternative, as occurring during a commute and, accordingly, found it compensable under the exceptions to the going and coming rule. 38 We hold that the trial court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Mr. Frederick’s injury “occurred in the course of his employment.” See, e.g., Scherr v. Miller, 229 Md. 538, 544-45 (1962) (holding that the trial court properly denied the employer’s motion for judgment becau

2015Before explaining why, we must discuss the free transportation exception to the going and coming rule. *289 The free transportation exception first was recognized by the Court of Appeals in Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 , 108 A. 874 (1919).

2019App. 736 , 744-45, 989 A.2d 1221 (2010) (finding Larson's discussion on standing instructive on this Court's interpretation of Maryland's rule on standing to appeal WCC decisions); Barnett v. Sara Lee Corp. , 97 Md.

2019App. 736, 744-45 (2010) (finding Larson’s discussion on standing instructive on this Court’s interpretation of Maryland’s rule on standing to appeal WCC decisions); Barnett v. Sara Lee Corp., 97 Md.

2019Calvo , 459 Md. at 329 , 185 A.3d 146 (citations omitted); Roberts , 436 Md. at 606 , 84 A.3d 87 ; Garrity v. Injured Workers' Ins.

2019Calvo , 459 Md. at 329 , 185 A.3d 146 (citations omitted); Roberts , 436 Md. at 606 , 84 A.3d 87 ; Garrity v. Injured Workers' Ins.

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019Id. at 69.

2019Id. 24 looked to Professor Arthur Larson’s “three principal indicia” in order to determine whether Mr. Smith’s home could be deemed the premises of the employer for purposes of falling under the exception to the going and coming rule under Wisconsin’s workers’ compensation statute.

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g., McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek, 375 Md. 575 , 593 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson’s treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready, 360 Md. at 55 (quoting, with approval, Larson’s treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris, 342 Md. 1, 7-10 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson’s treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, 329 Md. at 46-47 (adopting Larson’s own conveyance

2019Appeals Bd. , 40 Cal.3d 345 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 94 , 708 P.2d 673 , 677 (1985), the going and coming rule addresses the time and space boundaries of the employment.

2019Appeals Bd. , 40 Cal.3d 345 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 94 , 708 P.2d 673 , 677 (1985), the going and coming rule addresses the time and space boundaries of the employment.

2014None of the exceptions set forth in [Board of County Commissioners for Frederick County v. Vache, 349 Md. 526 , 709 A.2d 155 (1998) 11 ] apply, and his claim is barred by the going and coming rule.” Mr. Roberts countered that his injury was compensable, because “but for” his “work-related duties of physical training and receiving his work mail, he would not have been travelling [sic] between Friendly High School and Station 19,” and he was in a place he could reasonably be expected to be in going from one “work-related duty” of physical training, to another, checking his work mail, which *601

2014None of the exceptions set forth in [Board of County Commissioners for Frederick County v. Vache, 349 Md. 526 , 709 A.2d 155 (1998) 11 ] apply, and his claim is barred by the going and coming rule.” Mr. Roberts countered that his injury was compensable, because “but for” his “work-related duties of physical training and receiving his work mail, he would not have been travelling [sic] between Friendly High School and Station 19,” and he was in a place he could reasonably be expected to be in going from one “work-related duty” of physical training, to another, checking his work mail, which *601

2014The going and coming rule provides that injuries sustained by employees commuting to and from a fixed site of employment, “are generally not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment and are, therefore, not compensable under the Act.” Morris v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 339 Md. 374, 379 , 663 A.2d 578, 582 (1995), citing Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44, 617 A.2d at 573-74; see Salomon v. State, 250 Md. 150, 154 , 242 A.2d 126, 129 (1968) (claimant “was simply going to her place of employment”); Tavel v. Bechtel Corp., 242 Md. 299, 301 , 219 A.2d 43, 44 (1966) (clai

2014The going and coming rule provides that injuries sustained by employees commuting to and from a fixed site of employment, “are generally not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment and are, therefore, not compensable under the Act.” Morris v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 339 Md. 374, 379 , 663 A.2d 578, 582 (1995), citing Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44, 617 A.2d at 573-74; see Salomon v. State, 250 Md. 150, 154 , 242 A.2d 126, 129 (1968) (claimant “was simply going to her place of employment”); Tavel v. Bechtel Corp., 242 Md. 299, 301 , 219 A.2d 43, 44 (1966) (clai

2014The going and coming rule provides that injuries sustained by employees commuting to and from a fixed site of employment, “are generally not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment and are, therefore, not compensable under the Act.” Morris v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 339 Md. 374, 379 , 663 A.2d 578, 582 (1995), citing Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44, 617 A.2d at 573-74; see Salomon v. State, 250 Md. 150, 154 , 242 A.2d 126, 129 (1968) (claimant “was simply going to her place of employment”); Tavel v. Bechtel Corp., 242 Md. 299, 301 , 219 A.2d 43, 44 (1966) (clai

2014The going and coming rule provides that injuries sustained by employees commuting to and from a fixed site of employment, “are generally not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment and are, therefore, not compensable under the Act.” Morris v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 339 Md. 374, 379 , 663 A.2d 578, 582 (1995), citing Alitalia, 329 Md. at 44, 617 A.2d at 573-74; see Salomon v. State, 250 Md. 150, 154 , 242 A.2d 126, 129 (1968) (claimant “was simply going to her place of employment”); Tavel v. Bechtel Corp., 242 Md. 299, 301 , 219 A.2d 43, 44 (1966) (clai

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019See, e.g. , McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek , 375 Md. 574 , 593, 826 A.2d 474 (2003) (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in introducing a comparative test for trucking and other transitory types of employment); see also Mulready , 360 Md. at 55 , 756 A.2d 575 (quoting, with approval, Larson's treatise in adopting the positional-risk test); Mackin v. Harris , 342 Md. 1 , 7-10, 672 A.2d 1110 (1996) (adopting a narrower version of a test enunciated in Larson's treatise for purposes of determining when a subsequent injury is compensable under the Act); Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane , 3

2019Each analysis is dependent on resolution of the predicate facts informing place, time, and activity, which, in this case, remain in dispute. 17 The court viewed the injury, in the alternative, as occurring during a commute and, accordingly, found it compensable under the exceptions to the going and coming rule. 38 We hold that the trial court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Mr. Frederick’s injury “occurred in the course of his employment.” See, e.g., Scherr v. Miller, 229 Md. 538, 544-45 (1962) (holding that the trial court properly denied the employer’s motion for judgment becau