What Do You Think: Was Trucker's Stop for Dog Biscuits in Course of Employment?

Tolleson, AZ (WorkersCompensation.com) -- In Arizona, a traveling employee who substantially deviates from his employment loses the ability to collect workers’ compensation benefits for an injury he incurs at that time.

But what if employee is a trucker who just goes to the front of the store to shop and is injured on the way? An Arizona court addressed that in a situation involving a long-time truck driver, an out-of-control forklift, and a hungry dog.

The truck driver stopped on his regular route to pick up bales of cardboard from a store—a normal part of his duties. After loading the truck at the back of the large store, he drove the forklift to the front. His objective?—dog biscuits.

Other company employees, including the company’s safety manager, had used forklifts for the same purpose. Doing so tended to save time, allowing them to get back to work sooner. The company’s general manager acknowledged that employees were free to shop on their breaks at stores where they were working.

On the way to the front of the store, the trucker hit a rock, causing the forklift to tilt, and causing him to twice bump his head on the protective cage. He got out, collapsed, and lost consciousness.

The trucking company denied his request for compensation benefits for the ensuing injury. An ALJ awarded the trucker benefits, and the company appealed.

On appeal, the company argued that the injury did not occur in the course of employment because the trucker was substantially deviating from his employment at the time of the injury. Specifically, according to company, the trucker was on a personal errand when he hit his head. Also, it pointed out that company policy prohibited workers from using tow trucks for travel.

The appeals court explained that Arizona cases provide that the conduct of a traveling employee — either overnight or daily — during work is "in the course of" employment unless it is a "substantial deviation" from that employment.

Did the trucker substantially deviate from his employment?

A. Yes. Buying dog biscuits was clearly a personal errand.

B. No. It was not unusual or particularly dangerous for truckers to use the forklift to reach the front of such a store.

If you chose B you sided with the court in CRST Int’l. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. 1 CA-IC 21-0049 (Ariz. Ct. App. 10/06/22), which held that the ALJ properly could conclude that the trucker’s conduct was not a substantial deviation from customary or reasonable practice such that it was outside the course of his employment.

The court acknowledged that the trucker was on a personal errand when he hit his head. However, that fact was not dispositive. Instead, the question was whether he was substantially deviating from his employment. He was not, the court held.

The court noted that the company admitted that truckers were allowed to shop on their breaks at client stores. Moreover, while it was true that the trucker used the forklift for travel, other employees, including the company’s safety manager, used forklifts to reach the front of large stores.

Further, the court noted, this was not a case where using the forklift for such a purpose was unusually dangerous. And given prior usage, this was not a case where the employee “violated a company rule that was communicated and enforced,” the court wrote.

“If there was any deviation from employment by [the trucker’s] attempt to buy dog biscuits, it was slight,” the court added.

The court affirmed the ALJ’s decision awarding the trucker benefits.

This feature does not provide legal advice.

Share This Article: