Introduction

The landmark case, Ara Marie Histed v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co., adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Delaware on March 10, 1993, addresses a pivotal issue in workers' compensation law—the applicability of the "special errand" exception within the "going and coming" rule of employer nonliability. This case involves Ara Marie Histed, a long-term employee of DuPont, who sustained injuries during an automobile accident while responding to an emergency call from her employer outside of her regular working hours. The central legal question revolves around whether her commute under these specific circumstances falls under compensable employment-related activities.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, Ms. Histed, a senior instrument technician with over twenty-six years of service at DuPont, was summoned by her employer at 2:00 a.m. to address an instrument malfunction that halted production at one of its plants. Responding promptly, Ms. Histed was involved in a vehicular accident enroute—an incident for which she sought workers' compensation benefits. The Industrial Accident Board initially denied her claim, categorizing her trip as part of the general "going and coming" commute, which is typically excluded from compensation. The Superior Court affirmed this decision. However, upon appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, recognizing that Ms. Histed’s journey constituted a "special errand" under specific circumstances, thereby entitling her to workers' compensation benefits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court of Delaware extensively cited several precedents to frame its decision, including:

• EADY v. MEDICAL PERSONNEL POOL: Established that unexpected or exigent circumstances can qualify a commute as a special errand.
• Hickey v. Union Pacific R. Co.: Recognized increased risks associated with off-hours travel under employer request as compensable.
• JOHNSON v. CHRYSLER CORP.: Affirmed that an employee must demonstrate that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
• BRIGGS v. AMERICAN BILTRITE: Provided a broad interpretation of the special errand rule, emphasizing that non-routine assignments fall outside the general commuting exemption.
• MOOSEBRUGGER v. PROSPECT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Demonstrated limitations of the special errand exception when the travel is part of routine duties.
• Sherar v. B. and E. Convalescent Center: Highlighted that without elements like urgency or increased risk, travel does not qualify as a special errand.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's approach to distinguishing between ordinary commutes and work-related errands that warrant compensation.

Legal Reasoning

The Delaware Supreme Court employed a "totality of the circumstances" approach to determine whether Ms. Histed's commute should be classified as a special errand. Key factors included the urgency of the employer's request, the unusual timing of the assignment (2:00 a.m.), the inherent inconvenience and increased risk associated with traveling at such hours, and the compensation structure provided by DuPont for emergency assignments.

The Court emphasized the employer's intent to compensate for the additional travel through the provision of a three-hour minimum payment, which was indicative of a special errand rather than mere inconvenience. Moreover, the emergency nature of restoring production and the departure from Ms. Histed's regular duties reinforced the classification of her journey within the course and scope of employment.

The Court also addressed the Board's reliance on legal commentary, clarifying misconceptions about the relationship between travel compensation and its application. By aligning with established precedents, the Court substantiated that compensated travel within specific contexts falls under the workers' compensation umbrella.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for Delaware's workers' compensation framework. By affirming the applicability of the "special errand" exception, the Court provides a clearer pathway for employees who are called upon to perform non-routine tasks outside their standard work parameters. It underscores the necessity for employers to recognize and appropriately compensate employees engaged in urgent assignments that deviate from their regular duties.

Future cases will likely reference this decision when evaluating the scope of employment, especially in contexts involving after-hours or emergency assignments. Employers may need to reassess their compensation structures for on-call or emergency duties to ensure compliance and avoid potential liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Going and Coming Rule

The "going and coming" rule is a foundational principle in workers' compensation law that excludes injuries sustained during an employee's ordinary commute to and from work. The rationale is that commuting is considered a personal activity, subject to the same risks as undertaken by the general public, and thus not compensable under employment-related injury provisions.

Special Errand Exception

The "special errand" exception serves as a carve-out to the "going and coming" rule. It applies when an employee is required to perform tasks that significantly diverge from their regular duties, especially under urgent or hazardous circumstances. Factors such as the timing of the assignment, increased risk, and employer-provided compensation are critical in determining whether a commute is reclassified as a special errand, thereby making it compensable under workers' compensation laws.

Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Histed v. DuPont marks a pivotal advancement in workers' compensation jurisprudence by delineating the boundaries of the "special errand" exception. By recognizing that non-routine, urgent assignments that impose additional risks and inconveniences on employees warrant compensation, the Court reinforces the protective intent of workers' compensation laws. This ruling not only provides clarity for employees seeking rightful compensation but also guides employers in structuring on-call and emergency assignment protocols. Ultimately, this decision enhances the equitable application of workers' compensation, ensuring that employees are justly compensated for injuries sustained while fulfilling critical and non-standard employment duties.