This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An employee of a landscaping business was injured in a car accident while returning home from a temporary job assembling Christmas wreaths in Rociada, New Mexico. The employer typically provided transportation for employees to and from the job site, but on the day of the accident, the employee requested and received permission to leave work early and travel with a coworker in the coworker’s car. The accident occurred during this trip, and the employee was not being paid for travel time at the time of the incident (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer, finding that the employee was not injured within the scope and course of employment.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Employee): Argued that the injury fell within exceptions to the "going and coming" rule, particularly citing case law where travel in employer-provided transportation or alternate arrangements was deemed part of employment. The employee also invoked the "special errand" rule and other precedents to support the claim for compensation (paras 5-10).
- Respondent (Employer): Contended that the employee was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident, as the trip was personal in nature, and the employee had chosen to forgo employer-provided transportation and leave early for personal reasons (paras 4, 7, and 9).
Legal Issues
- Does the employee’s injury fall within any recognized exceptions to the "going and coming" rule, making it compensable under workers' compensation law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the employee’s injuries were not compensable under workers' compensation law (para 11).
Reasons
Per Minzner CJ (Donnelly and Bivins JJ. concurring):
The court found that the employee’s injury did not fall within any recognized exceptions to the "going and coming" rule. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the employee, such as Cornelius v. Brock and Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co., noting that in those cases, the travel was either required by the employer or integral to the employee’s duties. Here, the employee chose to leave work early for personal reasons and opted not to use the employer-provided transportation. The court also rejected the application of the "special errand" rule, as the trip home was unrelated to any task requested by the employer. The court concluded that the trip was personal in nature and not within the scope of employment, affirming the summary judgment (paras 5-10).