express or implied requirement in South Carolina

2026Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 471 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1987) ("The general rule in South Carolina is that an injury sustained by an employee away from the employer's premises while on his way to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment."); Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms, 244 S.C. 6, 14 , 135 S.E.2d 321, 326 (1964) (finding that exceptions to the coming and going rule including: "[t]hat such injury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable unless the plac

2026Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 471 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1987) ("The general rule in South Carolina is that an injury sustained by an employee away from the employer's premises while on his way to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment."); Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms, 244 S.C. 6, 14 , 135 S.E.2d 321, 326 (1964) (finding that exceptions to the coming and going rule including: "[t]hat such injury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable unless the plac

2026Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 471 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1987) ("The general rule in South Carolina is that an injury sustained by an employee away from the employer's premises while on his way to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment."); Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms, 244 S.C. 6, 14 , 135 S.E.2d 321, 326 (1964) (finding that exceptions to the coming and going rule including: "[t]hat such injury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable unless the plac

2026Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469, 471 , 354 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1987) ("The general rule in South Carolina is that an injury sustained by an employee away from the employer's premises while on his way to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment."); Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms, 244 S.C. 6, 14 , 135 S.E.2d 321, 326 (1964) (finding that exceptions to the coming and going rule including: "[t]hat such injury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable unless the plac

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. Elec. & Gas Co., 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240, 243-44 (1944) (finding under "the peculiar and unu

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. Elec. & Gas Co., 205 S.C. 423, 32 S.E.2d 240, 243-44 (1944) (finding under "the peculiar and unu

2015Among these are where (1) “the means of transportation is provided by the employer, or the time that is consumed is paid for or included in the wages;” (2) “the employee, on his way to or from his work, is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment;” (3) the way to work is inherently dangerous and is either the exclusive way or is constructed and maintained by the employer; (4) the injury occurred in close proximity to the workplace and there is an express or implied requirement that the employee use that approach in going to and coming from work; and (5) an employe

2015Among these are where (1) “the means of transportation is provided by the employer, or the time that is consumed is paid for or included in the wages;” (2) “the employee, on his way to or from his work, is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment;” (3) the way to work is inherently dangerous and is either the exclusive way or is constructed and maintained by the employer; (4) the injury occurred in close proximity to the workplace and there is an express or implied requirement that the employee use that approach in going to and coming from work; and (5) an employe

2015See Medlin v. Upstate Plaster Serv., 329 S.C. 92, 96 , 495 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1998) ("[I]njury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable 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 and coming from his work." (emphasis added)); Williams, 245 S.C. at 381 , 140 S.E.2d at 603 ("If the employee be injured while passing, with the express or implied consent

2015See Medlin v. Upstate Plaster Serv., 329 S.C. 92, 96 , 495 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1998) ("[I]njury incurred by a workman in the course of his travel to his place of work and not on the premises of his employer but in close proximity thereto is not compensable 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 and coming from his work." (emphasis added)); Williams, 245 S.C. at 381 , 140 S.E.2d at 603 ("If the employee be injured while passing, with the express or implied consent

2015Under the duty or task exception, “an employee will not be precluded from receiving benefits where the employee, on his way to or from his work, is charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment.” Whitworth v. Window World, Inc., 377 S.C. 637, 641 , 661 S.E.2d 333, 336 (2008).

2015Under the duty or task exception, “an employee will not be precluded from receiving benefits where the employee, on his way to or from his work, is charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment.” Whitworth v. Window World, Inc., 377 S.C. 637, 641 , 661 S.E.2d 333, 336 (2008).