GA High Court Ruling May Widen Workers' Comp Net

Expanding Clients' Liability?

The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of Georgia said that because King had returned to the general Fayetteville/Jackson area when the truck he was driving was struck by another vehicle, his son had a valid claim. The plaintiff's lawyer, Timothy V. Hanofee of Atlanta thinks the decision is good for all traveling employees. He was concerned that a high court reversal of the lower court's decision would negatively impact any traveling employee case.

However, lawyers who represent employers and their insurers in workers' compensation cases say the decision expands their clients' liability. They advise employers to be more careful about providing employees with company transportation, and to set guidelines about what employees can do when they are on the job away from their home area. Employers should give clearer directions to their employees concerning the use of the company vehicle and what limitations are placed upon their use of the company vehicle. For example, employers might consider a policy that permits traveling employees to use their company vehicles for some trips of a personal nature but forbids driving beyond a certain geographic distance.

Nevertheless, being careful about providing company transportation might not help employers under the court's analysis, said Edwin G. Russell Jr., of Shivers & Associates, who represents Ray Bell Construction and its insurer, Travelers. According to Russell, the decision basically means that just about every employee is covered 24-7 if he or she is in continuous employment.

Alyson M. Palmer is a reporter for the Fulton County Daily Report, a sister publication of this newsletter.

The Georgia Supreme Court issued a sharply divided ruling on March 26 that some say exposes employers to workers' compensation claims for just about anything their employees might do while traveling. Ray Bell Construction Co. v. King, S06G0891.

The 4-3 decision, which turns on an interpretation of the 'continuous employment' doctrine, upheld an award of workers' compensation benefits to the 11-year-old son of a man killed as a result of an automobile accident in Georgia. Howard King's employer, Ray Bell Construction Co., had put the Florida resident up in an apartment in Fayetteville, GA, while he was working as superintendent of a construction job in Jackson, GA. Ray Bell also provided him with the company truck that he was driving at the time of the accident.

Ray Bell and its insurer had contested the benefits claim on the ground that King was not acting in the course of his employment when the accident occurred in August 2002. He was on sick leave at the time and had been delivering family furniture to a storage shed in Alamo, GA ' points on which the dissenters seized.

Expanding Clients' Liability?

The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of Georgia said that because King had returned to the general Fayetteville/Jackson area when the truck he was driving was struck by another vehicle, his son had a valid claim. The plaintiff's lawyer, Timothy V. Hanofee of Atlanta thinks the decision is good for all traveling employees. He was concerned that a high court reversal of the lower court's decision would negatively impact any traveling employee case.

However, lawyers who represent employers and their insurers in workers' compensation cases say the decision expands their clients' liability. They advise employers to be more careful about providing employees with company transportation, and to set guidelines about what employees can do when they are on the job away from their home area. Employers should give clearer directions to their employees concerning the use of the company vehicle and what limitations are placed upon their use of the company vehicle. For example, employers might consider a policy that permits traveling employees to use their company vehicles for some trips of a personal nature but forbids driving beyond a certain geographic distance.

Nevertheless, being careful about providing company transportation might not help employers under the court's analysis, said Edwin G. Russell Jr., of Shivers & Associates, who represents Ray Bell Construction and its insurer, Travelers. According to Russell, the decision basically means that just about every employee is covered 24-7 if he or she is in continuous employment.

Alyson M. Palmer is a reporter for the Fulton County Daily Report, a sister publication of this newsletter.