15 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Law Offices of Alan Josephgreen2 sentences2005The rationale for the going and coming rule was explained in Thompson v. Law Offices of Alan Joseph, 256 Kan. 36, 46 , 883 P.2d 768 (1994): “[W]hile on the way to or from work the employee is subjected only to the same risks or hazards as those to which the general public is subjected. 2005The rationale for the going and coming rule was explained in Thompson v. Law Offices of Alan Joseph, 256 Kan. 36, 46 , 883 P.2d 768 (1994): “[W]hile on the way to or from work the employee is subjected only to the same risks or hazards as those to which the general public is subjected. | 2 | 3 |
Sumner v. Meier's Ready Mix, Inc.green2 sentences2012Consequently, an employee should be denied compensation if his or her injury falls within the going-and-coming rule. 282 Kan. at 289 . 2012See, e.g., Sumner v. Meiers Ready Mix, Inc., 282 Kan. 283, 289 , 144 P.3d 668 (2006) (semi-truck/flatbed trailer driver) (citing Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 223 , 960 P.2d 205 [1998] [volunteer firefighter]); Kindel v. Ferco Rental, Inc., 258 Kan. 272, 277 , 899 P.2d 1058 (1995) (construction worker). | 2 | 2 |
Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co.green2 sentences2013App. 2d 164 , and Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co., 9 Kan. 2004The rationale behind the going and coming rule is that “ ‘the injury does not arise out of the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of the employment, while the employee is on his way to assume his duties or after leaving his duties, which is not proximately caused by the employer’s negligence.’ ” Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co., 9 Kan. | 1 | 6 |
Estate of Soupene Ex Rel. Soupene v. Lignitzgreen2 sentences2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 | 1 | 3 |
Scott v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 | 1 | 2 |
Butera v. Fluor Daniel Construction Corp.green2 sentences2012App. 2d 542 , 18 P.3d 278 , rev. denied 271 Kan. 1035 (2001), both of which analyzed the going-and-coming rule. 2003This court remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the premises exception or the special hazard exception to the going and coming rule applied to the facts of this case. 28 Kan. | 1 | 2 |
Chapman v. Beech Aircraft Corp.green2 sentences2006K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 44-508(f) states: “An employee shall not be construed as being on the way to assume tire duties of employment or having left such duties at a time when the worker is on the premises of the employer or on the only available route to or from work which is a route involving a special risk or hazard and which is a route not used by dre public except in dealings with dre employer.” See Chapman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 258 Kan. 653, 664 , 907 P.2d 828 (1995). 2006K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 44-508(f) states: “An employee shall not be construed as being on the way to assume tire duties of employment or having left such duties at a time when the worker is on the premises of the employer or on the only available route to or from work which is a route involving a special risk or hazard and which is a route not used by dre public except in dealings with dre employer.” See Chapman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 258 Kan. 653, 664 , 907 P.2d 828 (1995). | 1 | 2 |
Kyle v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.green1 sentence2020See Kyle, 118 Kan. at 301-02 . 10 So next, we must apply the rule to the facts here to see if Houser was acting within the scope of his employment—in furtherance of the business of the state—when he left Topeka to return home. | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. VAL ENERGY, INC.green2 sentences2013While caselawdeems inherent travel an exception to the going-and-coming rule, “it appears the analysis is really whether travel has become a required part of the job such that the employee actually assumes the duties of employment from the moment he or she leaves the house and continues to fulfill the duties of employment until he or she arrives home at the end of the workday.” Craig, 47 Kan. 2013In support of its application of the inherent-travel exception to the going-and-coming rule, the Board majority cited Craig, 47 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
Quintana v. HD DRILLING, LLCgreen1 sentence2013App. 2d at 168-69 (rejecting argument that judicially created inherent-travel exception to K.S.A. 44-508(f) not viable after Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605 , 214 P.3d 676 (2009), because it contradicts clear statutory language); Quintana, 2012 WL 1759430, at *6-7 (same; noting Kansas Supreme Court has not departed from any cases recognizing inherent-travel exception since Bergstrom). | 1 | 1 |
Simkins v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2006Cf. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89, 104 (“Under the circumstances of this case, the portion of the lot designated by [employer] for its employees’ use was effectively equivalent to an employer-owned lot.”); accord Simkins v. General Motors, 453 Mich. 703, 727 , 556 *758 N.W.2d 839 (1996) (under the going and coming rule, “an employee is injured in the course of his employment when traveling to or from work when . . . the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer.”); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm,., 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purp | 1 | 1 |
Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.green1 sentence2006Cf. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89, 104 (“Under the circumstances of this case, the portion of the lot designated by [employer] for its employees’ use was effectively equivalent to an employer-owned lot.”); accord Simkins v. General Motors, 453 Mich. 703, 727 , 556 *758 N.W.2d 839 (1996) (under the going and coming rule, “an employee is injured in the course of his employment when traveling to or from work when . . . the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer.”); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm,., 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purp | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crossgreen1 sentence2006Cf. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89, 104 (“Under the circumstances of this case, the portion of the lot designated by [employer] for its employees’ use was effectively equivalent to an employer-owned lot.”); accord Simkins v. General Motors, 453 Mich. 703, 727 , 556 *758 N.W.2d 839 (1996) (under the going and coming rule, “an employee is injured in the course of his employment when traveling to or from work when . . . the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer.”); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm,., 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purp | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2012In addition, the ALJ indicated that because the inherent travel exception to the going-and-coming rule was judicially created and not explicitly set out in the statute, it was no longer viable after our Supreme Court’s ruling in Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605 , 214 P.3d 676 (2009). 2012In addition, the ALJ indicated that because the inherent travel exception to the going-and-coming rule was judicially created and not explicitly set out in the statute, it was no longer viable after our Supreme Court’s ruling in Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605 , 214 P.3d 676 (2009). | 2 | 2012–2013 |
Brobst v. Brighton Place North
green
2 sentences2005One such exception provides that “injuries incurred while going and coming from places where work-related tasks occur can be compensable where the traveling is . . . required in order to complete some special work-related errand or special-purpose trip in die scope of the employment.” Brobst, 24 Kan. 2004“Although this court may substitute its judgment for that of the Board on questions of law, on disputed issues of fact an appellate court must view tire evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and determine if there is substantial competent evidence to support the Board’s determinations.” Brobst v. Brighten Place North, 24 Kan. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Kennedy v. Hull & Dillon Packing Co.
green
2 sentences2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Williams v. Petromark Drilling, LLC
green
2 sentences2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 2018When interpreting the going and coming exclusion, we have recognized that when travel is an intrinsic part of the employee's job, the employee has already assumed the duties of his or her employment when they are "going and coming." See Williams , 299 Kan. at 795 , 326 P.3d 1057 ("If there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board's finding that the tire blowout occurred while Williams was in the course and scope of his employment, i.e. , during travel intrinsic to his duties for Petromark, then the Court of Appeals' limited role required it to affirm the Board."); Scott II , 294 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
LaRue v. Sierra Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences2013The dissenting Board members distinguished Craig and Messenger , found LaRue v. Sierra Petroleum Co., 183 Kan. 153 , 325 P.2d 59 (1958), to be more analogous, and voted for application of the going-and-coming rule. 2013The dissenting Board members distinguished Craig and Messenger , found LaRue v. Sierra Petroleum Co., 183 Kan. 153 , 325 P.2d 59 (1958), to be more analogous, and voted for application of the going-and-coming rule. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kindel v. Ferco Rental, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012See, e.g., Sumner v. Meiers Ready Mix, Inc., 282 Kan. 283, 289 , 144 P.3d 668 (2006) (semi-truck/flatbed trailer driver) (citing Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 223 , 960 P.2d 205 [1998] [volunteer firefighter]); Kindel v. Ferco Rental, Inc., 258 Kan. 272, 277 , 899 P.2d 1058 (1995) (construction worker). 2012See, e.g., Sumner v. Meiers Ready Mix, Inc., 282 Kan. 283, 289 , 144 P.3d 668 (2006) (semi-truck/flatbed trailer driver) (citing Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 223 , 960 P.2d 205 [1998] [volunteer firefighter]); Kindel v. Ferco Rental, Inc., 258 Kan. 272, 277 , 899 P.2d 1058 (1995) (construction worker). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Halford v. Nowak Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2012As Judge Leben pointed out in his concurring opinion in Halford v. Nowak Construction Co., 39 Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
De Hoyos v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences2006Cf. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89, 104 (“Under the circumstances of this case, the portion of the lot designated by [employer] for its employees’ use was effectively equivalent to an employer-owned lot.”); accord Simkins v. General Motors, 453 Mich. 703, 727 , 556 *758 N.W.2d 839 (1996) (under the going and coming rule, “an employee is injured in the course of his employment when traveling to or from work when . . . the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer.”); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm,., 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purp 2006Cf. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., 111 N.J. 89, 104 (“Under the circumstances of this case, the portion of the lot designated by [employer] for its employees’ use was effectively equivalent to an employer-owned lot.”); accord Simkins v. General Motors, 453 Mich. 703, 727 , 556 *758 N.W.2d 839 (1996) (under the going and coming rule, “an employee is injured in the course of his employment when traveling to or from work when . . . the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer.”); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm,., 26 Ill. 2d 110 , 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purp | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Chapman v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
green
1 sentence2005K.S.A. 44-508(f). “ ‘[T]he question of whether the ‘going and coming’ rule applies must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.’ [Citation omitted.]” Chapman 20 Kan. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chapman v. Victory Sand & Stone Co.
green
1 sentence2005The Supreme Court concluded the employee was not under his employer’s control, but still on his way to assume his duties; therefore the going and coming rule applied. 197 Kan. at 381-82 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tate v. City of Junction City
green
1 sentence2005Furthermore, this court found there was substantial competent evidence to support the Board’s findings and “these findings were sufficient to conclude [the employee’s] death did not come within the Soupene exception.” 32 Kan. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Girard v. Trade Professionals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001The Girard court reached this conclusion because the Kansas courts’ application of the doctrine of respondeat superior was consistent with the going and coming rule. 50 F. Supp. 2d at 1053 . 2001The Girard court reached this conclusion because the Kansas courts’ application of the doctrine of respondeat superior was consistent with the going and coming rule. 50 F. Supp. 2d at 1053 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.