Board committed legal error by applying the “going and coming” rule.

On appeal, the Superior Court made reference to the “going and coming” rule, which provides that injuries resulting from accidents during an employee’s regular travel to and from work are not compensable. There are exceptions to that rule, and the court focused on the decision in Spellman v. Christiana Care Health Services, 74 A.3d 619 (Del.2013), in which the court set forth a framework for when the “going and coming” rule should be applied. Under Spellman, the Board is directed to first focus on the employment contract to determine if its terms contemplate that travel time is compensable. If the terms of the employment contract are clear on that issue, the Board’s inquiry must end. It is only when the employment contract is not clear on whether travel time to and from work is paid for that the Board can then consider secondary default presumptions and rules of construction, such as the “going and coming” rule and its exceptions.

The Superior Court reasoned that since the claimant’s employment contract specified that he would not be paid for travel from work to home or vice versa, the Spellman analysis required a ruling that the injury incurred while driving home from work did not arise out of the course of employment. Therefore, the Board committed legal error by then applying the “going and coming” rule. The Board’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Board for further proceedings. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2018}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}