going and coming rule in South Carolina

2015See 377 S.C. at 641 , 661 S.E.2d at 336 (holding a window installer did not meet an exception to the going and coming rule when he was involved in an accident transporting a piece of equipment to a job site).

2015See 377 S.C. at 641 , 661 S.E.2d at 336 (holding a window installer did not meet an exception to the going and coming rule when he was involved in an accident transporting a piece of equipment to a job site).

2025It owns no building other than its administrative building where it processes information for its workers that they then send out to jobs around South Carolina in various industrial setting[s]." Still, Cook argues his accident is compensable under the fourth exception to the going and coming rule because "the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment." Sola, 244 S.C. at 14, 135 S.E.2d at 326; see also Eargle v. S.C.

2025It owns no building other than its administrative building where it processes information for its workers that they then send out to jobs around South Carolina in various industrial setting[s]." Still, Cook argues his accident is compensable under the fourth exception to the going and coming rule because "the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment." Sola, 244 S.C. at 14, 135 S.E.2d at 326; see also Eargle v. S.C.

2005WILLIAMS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] A breaker is approximately ten feet long and weighs about three hundred pounds. [2] Because of his injuries, Whitworth needed his nephew’s assistance to complete the job. [3] Because we agree that Whitworth’s injury falls under the “duty or task” exception to the going and coming rule, we decline to address his other arguments. [4] Our court also ruled in favor of compensation based on the first exception to the going and coming rule, which states: “Where, in going to and returning from work, the means of transportation is provided by the employer,

2005WILLIAMS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] A breaker is approximately ten feet long and weighs about three hundred pounds. [2] Because of his injuries, Whitworth needed his nephew’s assistance to complete the job. [3] Because we agree that Whitworth’s injury falls under the “duty or task” exception to the going and coming rule, we decline to address his other arguments. [4] Our court also ruled in favor of compensation based on the first exception to the going and coming rule, which states: “Where, in going to and returning from work, the means of transportation is provided by the employer,

2025Our supreme court examined the going and coming rule as well as its exceptions in Davaut. 418 S.C. at 633, 795 S.E.2d at 681.

2025Our supreme court examined the going and coming rule as well as its exceptions in Davaut. 418 S.C. at 633, 795 S.E.2d at 681.

2025Elec. & Gas Co., 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240, 243-44 (1944) (finding under "the peculiar and unusual facts of this case," a maintenance worker instructed to report to work on Christmas morning to address an emergency at a gas company plant on the North shore of the Broad River was covered under the Act via an express or implied requirement of his employment contract when he drowned while attempting to boat to the plant from the South shore in dense fog enshrouding the lake and the river).

2025Elec. & Gas Co., 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240, 243-44 (1944) (finding under "the peculiar and unusual facts of this case," a maintenance worker instructed to report to work on Christmas morning to address an emergency at a gas company plant on the North shore of the Broad River was covered under the Act via an express or implied requirement of his employment contract when he drowned while attempting to boat to the plant from the South shore in dense fog enshrouding the lake and the river).

2016See, e.g., Epler, 393 A.2d at 1165-67 (concluding a public road separating the employer’s plant from a parking lot provided for employee parking was part of the employer’s premises under the state’s workers’ compensation law (citations omitted)); cf. Evans v. Coats & Clark, 328 S.C. 467, 469 , 492 S.E,2d 807, 808 (Ct. App. 1997) (finding “a common area situated in the lobby of the building that housed [the employee’s] place of employment” was part of the employer’s premises and therefore the going and coming rule did not preclude the employee’s recovery of workers’ compensation benefits (citat

2016See, e.g., Epler, 393 A.2d at 1165-67 (concluding a public road separating the employer’s plant from a parking lot provided for employee parking was part of the employer’s premises under the state’s workers’ compensation law (citations omitted)); cf. Evans v. Coats & Clark, 328 S.C. 467, 469 , 492 S.E,2d 807, 808 (Ct. App. 1997) (finding “a common area situated in the lobby of the building that housed [the employee’s] place of employment” was part of the employer’s premises and therefore the going and coming rule did not preclude the employee’s recovery of workers’ compensation benefits (citat

2016See, e.g., Harrison v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 247 Ga.App. 6 , 542 S.E.2d 142, 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (noting the exception "provides that an employee remains within the course of employment when traveling from the place of work to an employer-owned or -controlled parking lot, even if the course of travel *637 necessitates that the employee traverse a public road”).

2016See, e.g., Harrison v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 247 Ga.App. 6 , 542 S.E.2d 142, 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (noting the exception "provides that an employee remains within the course of employment when traveling from the place of work to an employer-owned or -controlled parking lot, even if the course of travel *637 necessitates that the employee traverse a public road”).

2015“Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case.” Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010).

2015“Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case.” Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010).

2015See Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135-36 , 276 S.E.2d 304, 306-07 (1981) (providing this court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel if they are supported by substantial evidence).

2015See Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135-36 , 276 S.E.2d 304, 306-07 (1981) (providing this court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel if they are supported by substantial evidence).

2012Therefore, an injury sustained by accident at such time is not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act because it does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.”); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994) (holding gratuitous workers are not employees); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 357 , 656 S.E.2d 753, 762 (Ct.App.2007) ("It is well settled that 'traveling employees are generally within the course of their employment from the time they leave home on a business trip until they return, for the self-evident reason that the traveli

2012Therefore, an injury sustained by accident at such time is not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act because it does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.”); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994) (holding gratuitous workers are not employees); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 357 , 656 S.E.2d 753, 762 (Ct.App.2007) ("It is well settled that 'traveling employees are generally within the course of their employment from the time they leave home on a business trip until they return, for the self-evident reason that the traveli

2012Therefore, an injury sustained by accident at such time is not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act because it does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.”); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994) (holding gratuitous workers are not employees); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 357 , 656 S.E.2d 753, 762 (Ct.App.2007) ("It is well settled that 'traveling employees are generally within the course of their employment from the time they leave home on a business trip until they return, for the self-evident reason that the traveli

2012Therefore, an injury sustained by accident at such time is not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act because it does not arise out of and in the course of his employment.”); Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 314 S.C. 43, 45 , 443 S.E.2d 803, 804 (1994) (holding gratuitous workers are not employees); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 357 , 656 S.E.2d 753, 762 (Ct.App.2007) ("It is well settled that 'traveling employees are generally within the course of their employment from the time they leave home on a business trip until they return, for the self-evident reason that the traveli

1998“An injury arises out of employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury.” Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 518 , 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996).

1998“An injury arises out of employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury.” Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 518 , 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996).