Copyright 2003 LRP Publications
National Public Employment Reporter

February 10, 2003

Benefits denied for injury suffered upon completion of personal errand

A city water board inspector substantially deviated from his employment when he drove a board vehicle to his girlfriend's house near the end of his normal workday. Accordingly, he was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits for injuries he suffered in an accident that occurred when he was attempting to return the vehicle late that night. Kawakami v. City and County of Honolulu, Board of Water Supply, No. 24523 (Hawaii 12/24/02).

The senior construction inspector for the Honolulu Board of Water Supply usually worked from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He drove a "company" vehicle when carrying out his daily work tasks.

"Company" vehicles were supposed to be returned to the work yard at the end of the workday. An employee returning the vehicle after 5:30 p.m. was supposed to obtain a gate key at the Board's control center.

On June 18, 1997, the inspector left a job site in the afternoon to correct a sewer line problem at his girlfriend's house. He rested and ate a meal there.

Around 10 p.m., the inspector drove to the control center to return the vehicle. He became concerned about the whereabouts of his girlfriend, who was following him in her car. He was involved in an accident in his BOWS vehicle while turning around on a highway to look for her.

The BOWS denied liability for the inspector's injury. The Hawaii Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board ruled the inspector's injuries were not compensable because he substantially deviated from the scope of his employment when he left work to embark on a personal errand.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed. The court observed that, pursuant to the unitary test, the inspector was required to show a causal connection between his injury and some incident of his employment. The court acknowledged the statutory presumption set forth in state law that an employee's workers' compensation claim is compensable.

Here, the BOWS produced substantial evidence that the inspector left the scope of employment to embark on a purely personal and unauthorized journey to his girlfriend's house. The court ruled the inspector did not "reenter" the scope of his employment when he attempted to return his "company" vehicle because his deviation was substantial.

The court agreed with the majority view precluding "compensability of injuries sustained by employees who deviate so significantly from their work that it constitutes abandonment of their duties." The inspector's deviation - not his work duties - brought him to the site where the accident took place, when he turned around to look for his girlfriend's car, the court reasoned.

The court said "there is absolutely no nexus between visiting a girlfriend halfway around the island and the work of a BOWS supervisor. Thus, the deviation itself fails the unitary test."