traveling employee rule in Florida

2003See also Leonard, 465 So.2d at 541 ("The traveling employee rule presupposes that the traveling employee is on his employer's business while he is eating meals regardless of whether he is actually conducting business at the time.").

1986Cases illustrating various types of injuries encompassed within the traveling employee rule include: Leonard v. Dennis, 465 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2nd DCA), pet. for review den., 476 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1985) (injuries sustained in an automobile accident while en route to dinner on a business trip); Jean Barnes Collections v. Elston, 413 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (injuries resulting from rape and attack while staying in a hotel during a business trip); Gray v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 475 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied 484 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1986) (injuries suffered while playing basketball

1989Auto Parts Company v. Doman is this Court's observation that injuries incurred during travel and while attending to the "normal creature comforts and reasonably comprehended necessities" are to be distinguished from "those incurred in the course of amusement ventures." 111 So.2d at 272 .

1986Auto Parts Co. v. Doman, 111 So.2d 270, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), cert. discharged 117 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1960), as follows: "[A]n employee whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises is within the course of his employment at all times during the trip other than where there is a distinct departure for a nonessential personal errand." (e.s.) In N. & L., the court held compensable injuries sustained by an employee, who, while on a business trip, fell on the premises of a motor court, where his work required him to stay.

2004See Ramirez v. Farish, 855 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (in deciding that claimant’s injuries, suffered in 2000, were compensa-ble because of his status as a traveling employee, the court relied upon a number of cases predating statutory enactments to the going-and-coming and traveling-employee rules, including Leonard); McCormick v. Auditor Gen’l., 772 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing order denying compensability, because claimant, an accountant whose job consisted primarily of conducting field audits in three counties, and who was injured in 1998, while making a one-hour drive from

2001See § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] Swartz contends that Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh, 437 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Standard Distribution Co. v. Johnson, 445 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Poinciana Village Construction Corp. v. Gallarano, 424 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), all permit exceptions to the "going and coming" rule for missions completed on behalf of the employer without requiring suddenness and irregularity.

2001See § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] Swartz contends that Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh, 437 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Standard Distribution Co. v. Johnson, 445 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Poinciana Village Construction Corp. v. Gallarano, 424 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), all permit exceptions to the "going and coming" rule for missions completed on behalf of the employer without requiring suddenness and irregularity.

2001See 445 So.2d at 664 .

2001See § 440.092(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] Swartz contends that Advanced Diagnostics v. Walsh, 437 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Standard Distribution Co. v. Johnson, 445 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Poinciana Village Construction Corp. v. Gallarano, 424 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), all permit exceptions to the "going and coming" rule for missions completed on behalf of the employer without requiring suddenness and irregularity.

1997See, e.g., Krause v. West Lumber Co., 227 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.1969) (while returning to office for meeting, salesman was injured in auto accident after taking his wife home, the court held that the fact that the employee’s personal convenience was being served simultaneously with the interests of his employer, did not preclude recovery for compensation benefits); Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So.2d 26 , 27-28 (Fla.1966) (traveling employee who at the time of injury was engaged in both a personal and business activity is not barred from workers’ compensation recovery); Rockhaulers,

1997See, e.g., Krause v. West Lumber Co., 227 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.1969) (while returning to office for meeting, salesman was injured in auto accident after taking his wife home, the court held that the fact that the employee’s personal convenience was being served simultaneously with the interests of his employer, did not preclude recovery for compensation benefits); Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So.2d 26 , 27-28 (Fla.1966) (traveling employee who at the time of injury was engaged in both a personal and business activity is not barred from workers’ compensation recovery); Rockhaulers,

1997See, e.g., Krause v. West Lumber Co., 227 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla.1969) (while returning to office for meeting, salesman was injured in auto accident after taking his wife home, the court held that the fact that the employee’s personal convenience was being served simultaneously with the interests of his employer, did not preclude recovery for compensation benefits); Levine v. Builders Aluminum Stone Co., 186 So.2d 26 , 27-28 (Fla.1966) (traveling employee who at the time of injury was engaged in both a personal and business activity is not barred from workers’ compensation recovery); Rockhaulers,

1985See, e.g., Leonard Van Stelle, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 59 Cal.2d 836 , 382 P.2d 587 , 31 Cal. Rptr. 467 (1963); Crees v. Sheldahl Telephone Co., 258 Iowa 292 , 139 N.W.2d 190 (1965); Robinson v. Federal Telephone & Radio Corp., 44 N.J.

1985See, e.g., Leonard Van Stelle, Inc. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 59 Cal.2d 836 , 382 P.2d 587 , 31 Cal. Rptr. 467 (1963); Crees v. Sheldahl Telephone Co., 258 Iowa 292 , 139 N.W.2d 190 (1965); Robinson v. Federal Telephone & Radio Corp., 44 N.J.