Somoza v. Daniel T Whang OD LLC Erie Ins Exchange, 040621 VAWC, VA00001732701
Case Date | April 06, 2021 |
Court | Virginia |
the claimant admitted she was driving her own vehicle when the accident occurred, and the employer did not pay her for any travel time. Although she routinely used the entrance closest to her job in relation to the way she came in to work, she admitted there were two entrances to her place of employment. The record also fails to show she was charged with a job duty or task connected to her employment at the time of the accident. Therefore, we find that none of the above exceptions to the going and coming rule apply to the present facts. This is not the end of our analysis, however.
A claim will not be barred by the going and coming rule if the location where the claimant was injured is considered the extended premises of the employer. See Johnson v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, JCN VA00000390970 (Mar. 10, 2014). . . . [T]he accident here did not occur on the parking lot. The claimant testified she still had to make a right turn to reach the parking area of the condominium complex. She indicated through photographic evidence that her car skidded on snow while traveling on a driveway which led to the parking lot. Nonetheless, there is no contradiction to the claimant’s testimony that her car was...
To continue reading
Request your trial