Bowman v R.L. Coolsaet Construction Co., 275 Mich App 188 (2008)
This case involves the “Traveling Employee” doctrine and whether or not it exists in Michigan. The general rule is that injuries sustained while going to or coming from work are not compensable under the WDCA, with a few exceptions to the contrary.

The Plaintiff worked as a journeyman pipe fitter since 1960. He rarely worked jobs within a commuting distance from his home in Big Rapids. As a result, he usually lived in either a motel or his travel trailer in a campground close to the job site. In June 2000, the Plaintiff accepted work from the defendant at a job site 200 miles from his home in Big Rapids. The Plaintiff brought his travel trailer to a KOA campground near the job site and lived in it during the week. He drove his truck home over the weekend. On September 14, 2000, the claimant worked until 3:00 p.m. when a heavy rain caused the operation to shut down for the day. As he was returning to the campground, he ran a stop sign at an intersection and struck another vehicle rendering him a paraplegic.

The magistrate denied the Plaintiff’s Application for benefits under the general rule regarding travel to and from work and the WCAC affirmed. The Plaintiff’s no-fault insurance carrier, Auto Club Insurance Association appealed the WCAC’s opinion to the Court of Appeals as an intervening Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the WCAC, adopting the “Traveling Employee” doctrine. This doctrine stands for the proposition that employees on a business trip are considered to be continuously within the scope of their employment during their trip, except when a distinct departure for a personal errand can be found.

Last year, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the finding of the Court of Appeals, as noted in the 2007 Case Law Updated. The Supreme Court failed to adopt the Traveling Employee doctrine in this case because the Plaintiff was traveling to his “temporary home,” thus triggering the general rule. The Court of Appeals received this matter again on remand to determine if any of the other exceptions to the general rule applied.

The exceptions to the general rule exist if:

(1) the employee is on a special mission from the employer, (2) the employer derives a special benefit from the employee’s activity at the time of the injury, (3) the employer paid for or furnished employee transportation as part of the employment contract, (4) the travel comprised a dual purpose combining employment-related business needs with the personal activity of the employee, (5) the employment subjected the employee to excessive exposure to traffic risks, or (6) the travel took place as a result of a split-shift working schedule or employment requiring a similar irregular nonfixed working schedule.” Collier v J A Fredman, Inc, 183 Mich App 156 (1990), quoting Thomas v Staff Builders Health Care, 168 Mich App 127 (1988).

The only exception that potentially applied was exception 3. In this matter, the Plaintiff used his own truck for transportation, but his employer paid the Plaintiff for using it pursuant to a “rig rental” lease agreement. This was not a part of the Plaintiff’s employment contract, but the employer did give the Plaintiff a credit card to purchase not only gasoline used for work, but also for personal use. The income Plaintiff earned from this agreement was reported for tax purposes as a separate business income, as opposed to personal income. It was found that although the employer technically “paid” for the Plaintiff’s transportation, it was not part of the employment contract the exception did not apply. Because the Plaintiff did not meet any of the exceptions to the general rule, his injury was found to be not arising out of and in the scope of his employment.