express or implied requirement in West Virginia

2018We have said, [t]he “going and coming rule” has its foundations in workers compensation law and is articulated as follows in syllabus point two of De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914): An injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such (Workmen’s Compensation) fund, unless the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to a

2018We have said, [t]he “going and coming rule” has its foundations in workers compensation law and is articulated as follows in syllabus point two of De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914): An injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such (Workmen’s Compensation) fund, unless the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to a

2009For example, in Syllabus Point 1 of Canoy v. State Compensation Comm’r, 113 W.Va. 914 , 170 S.E. 184 (1933), we stated: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In the case sub judice, the appellant claims that her injury occurred as a result of and in th

2009For example, in Syllabus Point 1 of Canoy v. State Compensation Comm’r, 113 W.Va. 914 , 170 S.E. 184 (1933), we stated: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In the case sub judice, the appellant claims that her injury occurred as a result of and in th

2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception 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

2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception 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

2009In Syllabus Point 4 of Brown , this Court further explained that “ ‘[a]n injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such [Workers’ Compensation] fund, un *363 less the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from his work.’ Syllabus Point 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32, 83 S.E. 88 (1914).” “In other words, the empl

2009In Syllabus Point 4 of Brown , this Court further explained that “ ‘[a]n injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such [Workers’ Compensation] fund, un *363 less the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from his work.’ Syllabus Point 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32, 83 S.E. 88 (1914).” “In other words, the empl

1969This rule is stated in point 2 of the syllabus in the case of Taylor v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 13 , 178 S.E. 71 , wherein it is stated: "It is a general rule that, if an employee, en route to or from his work, is injured on the property of the employer, not within the zone of employment, compensation may not be awarded." However, when an employee is injured on or off the employer's premises while traveling to or from his work and the place of injury is brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the employment, such injury is held compensa

1969This rule is stated in point 2 of the syllabus in the case of Taylor v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 13 , 178 S.E. 71 , wherein it is stated: "It is a general rule that, if an employee, en route to or from his work, is injured on the property of the employer, not within the zone of employment, compensation may not be awarded." However, when an employee is injured on or off the employer's premises while traveling to or from his work and the place of injury is brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the employment, such injury is held compensa

2017The Office of Judges applied Williby v. West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner and First Century Bank, 24 W.Va. 358 , 686 S.E.2d. 9 (2009), which states that an injury incurred while traveling to work, and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to a compensable injury unless the place of injury was brought into the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment.

2009Basically, “[a]n employee is entitled to compensation for an injury sustained in going to or coming from his work, only where such injury occurs within the zone of his employment, and that zone must be determined by the circumstances of the particular case presented.” Syllabus Point 1, Carper v. Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 121 W.Va. 1 , 1 S.E.2d 165 (1939).

2009Basically, “[a]n employee is entitled to compensation for an injury sustained in going to or coming from his work, only where such injury occurs within the zone of his employment, and that zone must be determined by the circumstances of the particular case presented.” Syllabus Point 1, Carper v. Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 121 W.Va. 1 , 1 S.E.2d 165 (1939).

2002We stated in the Syllabus of Canoy that: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In accord, McEwan v. State Compensation Comm’r, 123 W.Va. 310 , 14 S.E.2d 914 (1941); Hager v. State Compensation Comm’r, 112 W.Va. 492 , 165 S.E. 668 (1932).

2002We stated in the Syllabus of Canoy that: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In accord, McEwan v. State Compensation Comm’r, 123 W.Va. 310 , 14 S.E.2d 914 (1941); Hager v. State Compensation Comm’r, 112 W.Va. 492 , 165 S.E. 668 (1932).

2002We stated in the Syllabus of Canoy that: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In accord, McEwan v. State Compensation Comm’r, 123 W.Va. 310 , 14 S.E.2d 914 (1941); Hager v. State Compensation Comm’r, 112 W.Va. 492 , 165 S.E. 668 (1932).

2002We stated in the Syllabus of Canoy that: Injury or death of an employee of a subscriber to the Compensation Fund occurring upon a public highway and not on the premises of the employer, gives right to participate in the fund, when “the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from work.” In accord, McEwan v. State Compensation Comm’r, 123 W.Va. 310 , 14 S.E.2d 914 (1941); Hager v. State Compensation Comm’r, 112 W.Va. 492 , 165 S.E. 668 (1932).

1974Moreover, in Bilchak v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, supra, it is said at page 295 of the West Virginia Reports, 168 S.E.2d at page 727 : "... [W]hen an employee is injured on or off the employer's premises while traveling to or from his work and the place of injury is brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement of the employment, such injury is held compensable.