What Do You Think: Was Worker’s Strip Club Visit Part of Energy Equipment Company’s Mission?

Odessa, TX (WorkersCompensation.com) – The “coming and going rule” generally bars an employee from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits for injuries incurred on the way to or from work. There are several exceptions to that rule, however.

A Louisiana case addresses whether one of those exceptions covers a worker who regularly travels between jobsites and, when the accident occurs, is driving with coworkers from a personal errand directly to a worksite.

In that case, four men, including the decedent, who worked for the company, finished work at 6 p.m. They met for dinner an hour later, where they consumed alcohol and watched football until 10 p.m. They then travelled to a strip club where they remained until about 2 a.m.

Because it was getting so late during the drive, the least intoxicated of the workers allegedly attempted to drive everyone to their jobsites. He fell asleep, however, and lost control of the car. The car rolled several times, ejecting the decedent, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

The decedent’s girlfriend who was also the mother of his daughter filed a claim on behalf of the child for death benefits. She stated that the decedent typically worked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. A workers’ compensation judge denied the claim, and the mother appealed.

Under the "going-and-coming rule," workers generally cannot obtain workers’ compensation benefits for injuries they sustain while traveling to and from work. Two of the exceptions to the rule are:

(1) If the employee was deemed to be on a specific mission for the employer at the time of the accident.
(2) If the employee was injured while traveling to and from one work site to another.

Was the worker in course and scope of employment when the car crashed?
A. No. He was not coming from a jobsite and the visit to the club was not made in furtherance of a company mission.
B. Yes. He was travelling directly to a jobsite.

If you chose A you sided with the court in Reed v. Black Star Energy Services, Inc., No. 23-148 (La Ct. App. 11/22/23), which held that the worker was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident.

The court pointed out that while the employees may have been travelling directly to a worksite, they were neither on a mission for their employer nor travelling between two worksites. Instead, their latest destination had been the strip club—a visit which was not a mission they were undertaking on behalf of their employer.

The court also pointed out that the decedent’s shift had ended at 6 p.m., while the accident occurred at 4 a.m. The decedent’s girlfriend’s admission that his typical worker hours were 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. bolstered the conclusion that the employee was not in the course and scope of employment when the accident occurred.

The court affirmed the WCJ’s conclusion that the decedent’s child was not entitled to death benefits because the worker was outside the course and scope of employment when he was injured.

Share This Article: