Did La. Resident Become ‘Travelling Employee’ by Working at Ky. Jobsite?

Maysville, KY (WorkersCompensation.com). The “travelling employee” doctrine allows an employee, in some cases, to collect workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained away from the jobsite. A recent Kentucky Supreme Court ruling involving a construction foreman injured on his motorcycle helps clarify the limits of the doctrine.

The foreman lived in Louisiana. He negotiated a new job with a construction company, W.G. Yates, and agreed to relocate and work on a distant project in Maysville, Kentucky. Once he arrived in Maysville and signed paperwork, he officially became an employee of the Mississippi-based company. 

The foreman kept his permanent residence but towed a trailer to a campsite near Maysville where he resided while he worked on the project. He also brought his motorcycle. The Ohio campsite was located very close to the Maysville jobsite.

Long after his shift ended, he rode his motorcycle to meet a friend for dinner in Ohio. A car struck the foreman, resulting in injuries, including the loss of part of his leg.

He sought workers’ compensation benefits on the basis that he was a travelling employee.

The ‘going and coming rule’ provides that injuries sustained by workers when they are going to or returning from the place where they regularly perform their job duties are not deemed to rise out of and in the course of the employment.

The traveling employee doctrine, an exception to that rule, provides that an injury that occurs while the employee is in travel status is work-related unless the worker was engaged in a significant departure from the purpose of the trip.

Was the general foreman a travelling employee?

A. No. It was his own choice to keep his residence in Louisiana and to go out to dinner.

B. Yes. He was in travel status because his residence was in Louisiana.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in W.G. Yates and Sons Construction Co. v. Lee, No. 2023-SC-0525-WC (Kentucky 12/19/24), which held that the injuries were not compensable.

The court pointed out that the company did not require the foreman to travel from Louisiana to the worksite. In fact, the foreman did not become an employee until he arrived at the Kentucky worksite. At that time, neither party expected that he would engage in work-related travel.

While the employee had to move to take the job, the court stated, his work occurred in one place–at the Maysville, Kentucky work site. The job did not require him to travel away from that site.

Further, his travel did not benefit the company. “[T]here was no benefit or service to Yates when [the foreman] attempted to go to a restaurant outside of his working hours because his travel was not an integral part of [his] job, in no way benefited Yates, and was not being done at the direction of Yates,” the court wrote.

Instead, his personal choices alone caused him to be on the road when the car struck him. Therefore, he was not a "traveling employee" at the time of the accident.

Reversing the court of appeals, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the injuries were not compensable.

Share This Article: