44 N.Y.2d 322 (1978)

An outside employee whose job requires travel between work locations remains within the scope of employment for worker’s compensation purposes, even when violating an employer’s implicit rule regarding the method of transportation, if the travel itself is an integral part of their job duties.

Summary

Sue Greene, a homemaker for the NYC Department of Social Services, was injured in a car accident while driving between client appointments. She did not have permission to use her personal vehicle. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied her claim, arguing that using her car without permission placed her outside the scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that as an “outside worker,” traveling between client sites was a core part of Greene’s job, and violating the transportation rule did not remove her from the course of employment. The court emphasized the remedial nature of worker’s compensation law.

Facts

Sue Greene worked as a homemaker for the City of New York Department of Social Services. Her job required her to travel to multiple clients’ homes daily to provide domestic services. Employees were generally not allowed to use their personal vehicles for work-related travel without permission. Greene did not seek or receive permission to use her car, but on December 10, 1974, she chose to drive to her assignments for personal convenience. While driving to her second appointment of the day, she was involved in a car accident and sustained injuries.

Procedural History

Greene filed for workmen’s compensation benefits. The referee disallowed the claim, and the Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed, finding that Greene’s unauthorized use of her car meant her accident did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted Greene leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an “outside worker” is considered outside the scope of their employment, for purposes of workmen’s compensation, when they are injured while traveling between work assignments in their own vehicle without explicit authorization, violating an implicit employer prohibition.

Holding

Yes, because Greene was an “outside worker” whose job inherently required travel, and her unauthorized mode of transport did not fundamentally alter the fact that she was engaged in the duties she was employed to perform.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the general rule denying compensation for injuries sustained while commuting does not apply to “outside workers.” These employees are required to travel as part of their job. The court acknowledged that Greene violated an implied prohibition by using her car without permission. However, it emphasized that the travel between clients’ homes was an integral part of her work duties. The court stated: “At the time of the accident, claimant, in traveling to an assigned client during regular working hours, was doing exactly what she had been employed to do.” The court distinguished between prohibitions related to the *manner* of performing work and prohibitions of the work itself. Violating a rule about *how* to travel, as opposed to *whether* to travel, does not remove an employee from the scope of employment. The court emphasized the remedial nature of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, stating that it “is to be construed liberally to accomplish the economic and humanitarian objects of the act”. The dissenting judge argued that the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s determination should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, and that the board was within its purview to determine that Greene’s actions fell outside the scope of employment.