Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; September 3, 1981; Maryland; State Appellate Court
Moore, J. delivered the Court's opinion reversing the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City that upheld the Workmen’s Compensation Commission's denial of Colie J. Sparrow's injury claim. Sparrow, a millwright at Louis Dreyfus Corporation, sustained a back injury while returning from lunch on April 19, 1979. He was returning with three colleagues in a pickup truck, having dined off-premises, which was permissible under company policy. Due to a freight train blocking the main access road, they took a poorly maintained gravel road, which was marked 'No Trespassing' and policed by the railroad. The truck hit a pothole, resulting in Sparrow's injury.
The Commission and trial court denied the claim on the basis that the injury did not meet the 'proximity' or 'special hazard' exceptions to the established 'going and coming' rule, which generally excludes injuries occurring while commuting to or from work from compensation. The 'going and coming' rule allows for exceptions if the injury occurs in an area associated with employment hazards, which includes two factors: the presence of a special hazard and the close relationship of the access route to the employment premises. The court's reversal indicates a recognition that the circumstances of Sparrow's injury may fulfill these exceptions, warranting a reevaluation of the case under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The Court defined 'special hazard' as an unusual exposure to a common risk, distinguishing it from the general public's experience. The case involved a hazardous pothole on a private railroad road that employees were required to use due to a blocked front road, emphasizing that this created a unique danger for them. The precedent set in Rambo v. International Dry Wall Co. highlighted that employees may face special hazards not encountered by the public. The Court affirmed that the 'proximity rule' is an exception to the 'going and coming' rule, allowing for compensation if certain criteria are met. These criteria, as outlined by Schneider, include being close to the workplace, proceeding diligently at an appropriate time, using a recognized route, and being on employer-controlled land or adjacent property with consent. The lower court found that three elements were satisfied, but questioned whether the employees were proceeding appropriately and diligently. It noted the risks involved in riding in an open pickup truck on an unpaved road. Ultimately, the court upheld the Commission's decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence cannot influence compensation under workmen's compensation law.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that most accidents result from negligence, and an employee's non-wilful negligence does not negate the occurrence of an accident or their right to compensation. In this case, the appellee acknowledged that the lower court may have overly focused on the appellant's decision to ride in the back of an open pickup truck on an unpaved road. The court concluded that this focus represented an error and determined that the proximity exception to the "going and coming" rule applied. The appellant's injury occurred in the course of employment and is thus compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings with costs to be paid by the appellees. Testimony indicated that other employees also used the back road to avoid delays caused by a train blocking the front road. The unmaintained street served as the only access to the construction site, despite not being officially accepted for maintenance by the county.
