Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wade v. Berkeley Countygreen2 sentences2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). 3 30 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (1998). 2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. [22] 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App. 1998). [23] 330 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (Ct.App.1998). [24] Id. at 689. [25] See also Duff v. Vazquez, 544 So.2d 1124 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989). | 1 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences1992While admittedly the worker's journey to and from work is because *222 of the employment, historically the courts have taken it for granted that industrial insurance was not intended to protect workers against all the perils of that journey. 1 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 15.11, at 4-4 (1990); see also In re Hamilton, 77 Wn.2d 355, 359-62 , 462 P.2d 917 (1969) (with certain express modifications, the Washington Legislature has enacted that which is now generally accepted as the going and coming rule). 1992While admittedly the worker's journey to and from work is because *222 of the employment, historically the courts have taken it for granted that industrial insurance was not intended to protect workers against all the perils of that journey. 1 A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 15.11, at 4-4 (1990); see also In re Hamilton, 77 Wn.2d 355, 359-62 , 462 P.2d 917 (1969) (with certain express modifications, the Washington Legislature has enacted that which is now generally accepted as the going and coming rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aloha Lumber Corp. v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2004She relies on a well-established exception to the going and coming rule that applies where an employee is going to or coming from work “in a vehicle furnished by his employer as an incident to his employment pursuant to custom or contractual obligation, either express or implied.” Aloha Lumber, 77 Wn.2d at 766 ; accord, Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. 2004She relies on a well-established exception to the going and coming rule that applies where an employee is going to or coming from work "in a vehicle furnished by his employer as an incident to his employment pursuant to custom or contractual obligation, either express or implied." Aloha Lumber, 77 Wash.2d at 766 , 466 P.2d 151 ; accord, Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. | 3 | 1983–2004 |
Tuttle v. Muenks
green
2 sentences2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). 3 30 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (1998). 2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. [22] 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App. 1998). [23] 330 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (Ct.App.1998). [24] Id. at 689. [25] See also Duff v. Vazquez, 544 So.2d 1124 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Belnap v. Boeing Company
green
1 sentence2016Belnap, 64 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cochran Electric Co. v. Mahoney
neutral
2 sentences2016Cochran, 129 Wn. 2016The dual purpose exception No. 74565-4-1/5 applies when an employee is injured in transit and the travel "served both a business and personal purpose." Id. at 695-96 (citing Martin. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2004Co., 330 U.S. 469 , 67 S.Ct. 801 , 91 L.Ed. 1028 (1947). 2004Co., 330 U.S. 469 , 67 S.Ct. 801 , 91 L.Ed. 1028 (1947). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Duff v. Vazquez
green
2 sentences2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. [22] 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App. 1998). [23] 330 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (Ct.App.1998). [24] Id. at 689. [25] See also Duff v. Vazquez, 544 So.2d 1124 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989). 2001As one rationale for its decision, the court stated that the going and coming rule should not be applied as liberally to attach vicarious liability to employers as it is to ensure that injured workers obtain compensation. [22] 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App. 1998). [23] 330 S.C. 311 , 498 S.E.2d 684 (Ct.App.1998). [24] Id. at 689. [25] See also Duff v. Vazquez, 544 So.2d 1124 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Runyan v. Pickerd
green
2 sentences2001Id. 2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Flavorland Industries, Inc. v. Schumacker
green
1 sentence1992App. 428 , 647 P.2d 1062 (1982) support appellant's claim that Boeing's leave with pay policy brings Belnap under the reimbursed travel exception to the going and coming rule. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.