What the courts say about traveling employees

By Beth Cupani, SAIF Attorney

Many employees routinely travel as part of their work, whether it be to attend a conference, travel to another office, or perform field work. Workers who travel away from the workplace on business can be considered "traveling employees," even if the travel is local and of limited duration.

A traveling employee is generally considered to be continuously in the course and scope of employment while traveling, except when the employee is engaged in a "distinct departure on a personal errand." Practically speaking, this means that an employee who attends an overnight conference is considered to be acting within the course of employment when engaged in activities such as having dinner, working out, or performing other activities considered by the courts to be reasonably related to the worker's travel status. In other words, the traveling employee need not be working at the time of the injury for an injury to be compensable.

A traveling employee is generally considered to be continuously in the course and scope of employment while traveling, except when the employee is engaged in a “distinct departure on a personal errand.”

A few cases illustrate the general rule of continuous coverage. One case involved a worker who was injured after hours while attending an off-site, work-related conference. The worker ruptured an Achilles tendon while playing basketball at a gym located 15 miles from the conference site. The court determined that claimant's gym activity was not a distinct departure on a personal errand, but instead was an activity that could be reasonably expected of a traveling employee. The court also noted that the activity was not inconsistent with the trip's purpose or the employer's directives.

Similarly, the court concluded that a long-haul truck driver had not engaged in a distinct departure on a personal errand when he chose to pass the time during a forced layover between trips by drinking in a local bar, and was injured in a bar fight. The court reasoned that the worker's need to pass the time was necessitated by the worker's employment, and hanging out at a bar was a reasonable way to do so.

It should be noted that it is possible for an employee to return to his travel status after making a distinct departure. For example, the court has held that an employee who had become highly intoxicated and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol returned to his status as a traveling employee when he was injured the next day driving his car from the impound lot back to his hotel.

More recently, the Workers' Compensation Board issued two decisions in favor of the employer. One case involved a traveling employee who completed his workday at a remote location and departed on a personal shopping trip with a co-worker to a gun store located an hour away from the hotel. The worker was killed in an auto accident on his way back to the hotel. The board concluded the worker was engaged in a distinct departure on a personal errand at the time he was killed, and upheld the denial of death benefits.

In another case, the board affirmed a denial where a traveling employee visited a friend after completing the day's tasks, became highly intoxicated, and was injured on his way back to his temporary residence. The worker argued that, although he may have been engaged in a distinct departure earlier in the night, he had returned to his status as a traveling employee on his journey back home. The board disagreed, concluding that the worker had essentially severed his traveling employee status for that day. Both decisions have been appealed to the court.

As illustrated in the cases above, the court and the board have historically required a fairly significant personal deviation before concluding that a traveling employee has left the broad scope of continuous coverage.