Is an injury that occurs during an employee's lunch hour compensable under the state's workers' comp laws? A New York state court of appeals recently considered that question.

What happened. A taxi driver was parked in a parking lot, eating his lunch, when another motorist asked for his help with a dead battery. As he was placing jumper cables on the battery, the battery exploded, and the taxi driver lost his left eye. When he filed for comp benefits, a workers' compensation law judge ruled that his helping the other motorist was a personal act, outside the scope of his employment, and that his injury wasn't compensable. The full Workers' Compensation Board reversed that decision and the employer appealed in the state court system.

What the court said. To be compensable under New York's Workers' Compensation Law, an injury must have arisen both out of and in the course of employment. Here, the employer argued that the injury wasn't compensable because the taxi driver was on a meal break at the time of the accident. The court agreed that injuries that occur during meal breaks taken off employer's premises are generally not compensable.

However, the court noted that the general rule doesn't apply in situations in which the nature of the job dictates the time and place of the meal, and the employee is still considered to be on the job at the time the break occurs. Here, testimony showed that drivers took 15- to 20-minute meal breaks at a time and place convenient to the employer and with its express permission. Therefore, the court said, there was enough evidence to support the Board's decision that the injury occurred during the course of employment.

The employer also argued that the injuries did not arise out of the employment because helping the other motorist was a forbidden act because the cab company purposely didn't supply the taxi cabs with jumper cables and specifically told drivers not to attempt any repairs on their vehicles. But the court said that the employer didn't bar the driver from aiding a stranded motorist while in the course of his employment. Furthermore, when an employee in the course of employment is temporarily involved in an activity that benefits the employer, the activity falls within the scope of employment. Here, because the cab was clearly marked with the employer's name, the assistance created a good-will benefit to the employer. The court affirmed the Board's decision. McFarland v. Lindy's Taxi, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, No. 502990 (3/27/08).

Point to remember: The rules governing injuries that occur while employees are in transit away from the workplace are complex, and any employer whose employees are regularly on the road would do well to understand the company's exposure in those situations.