MARTA ELLEN LINDBLOOM, PETITIONER,
v.
CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari in a workers' compensation case where an employee was injured in a car accident while returning home from work via a carpool. The court upheld the industrial claims judge's application of the 'going and coming rule,' which excludes most commute-related injuries from workers' compensation coverage, despite the employer's provision of free transportation.
The going and coming rule applies, and the injury is not covered under workers' compensation, despite the petitioner's contention that employer-provided transportation should create an exception to the rule.
[1] The going and coming rule generally excludes injuries sustained while commuting to and from work from workers' compensation coverage.
[2] The going and coming rule may not apply when transportation to and from work is an integral part of the employment or provided by the employer.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Judge of Industrial Claims erred in applying the going and coming rule when [*559] the uncontroverted evidence shows the transportation, to and from work, was a consideration incidental to the contract of employment, and that the employer provided free transportation to the claimant.”
The petitioner's main argument challenging the application of the going and coming rule despite alleged employer-provided transportation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarta Lindbloom worked as a teller for Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association in Miami Beach. She was injured in an automobile collision on Decemb…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employer-Provided Transportation cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Chief Justice.
The petitioner presents the following point for review:
“The Judge of Industrial Claims erred in applying the going and coming rule when the uncontroverted evidence shows the transportation, to and from work, was a consideration incidental to the contract of employment, and that the employer provided free transportation to the claimant.”
However, the Judge of Industrial Claims made the following findings of fact:
“I find that the employee, MARTA LINDBLOM, worked as a teller for the employer, CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, of Miami Beach, Florida. She was involved in an automobile collision on or about December 18,1974, at or near the intersection of Southwest 117th Avenue and Southwest 112th Street. She was at the time in the process of returning to her home, engaging in a car pool, and on the specific occasion, having driven Diana Liebgold to her destination. I find that the employee owned and operated her own motor vehicle at the time of the accident; that she received no compensation directly or indirectly from her employer for participating in a car pool; that the employer did not form or control the car pool; that the arrangements for this specific trip were made between MARTA LINDBLOM and Diana Liebgold individually, without participation by the employer; that the fees charged by MARTA LINDBLOM for using her car and gasoline in the car pool were set by the claimant, collected by the claimant and not guaranteed or paid by the employer; and that route of travel by the car pool was selected by the claimant and not the employer.”
The Commission’s affirmance is in accordance with the essential requirements of law. Swartzer v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 175 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1965).
Certiorari denied.
ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Handy George, Jr. v. Woodville Lumber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…nt. Claimant’s destination, route, and mode of transportation were of his own choosing. Nor was claimant’s transportation to and from work an incident to or part of his contract of employment. Lindblom v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, 344 So. 2d 558 (Fla.1977) appears analogous. Therein, the judge of industrial claims found as follows: I find that the employee, Marta Lind-blom, worked as a teller for the employer, Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, of Miami Beach, Florida. She was inv…
Authorities Cited
- Flavor Pict Co-Op & S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Victor Rodrigez & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 175 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1965)