Will County Sheriff secures benefits despite conducting personal errand before his accident
The Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District affirmed the Circuit court's order reversing the Illinois
Workers' Compensation Commission's denial of benefits to a deput sheriffinjured in a vehicular accident.
Case name: Johnson v. Will County Sheriff's Department, IWCC, 19 ILWCLB 136 (Ill.App.Ct., 2nd 2011).
Summary: Johnson, a deputy sheriff, left his assigned patrol area while on duty to collect his personal mail at a post office three miles outside the county border. As he was exiting the post office, Johnson received a radio assignment to assist a deputy in transporting a passenger. Johnson was traveling to the deputy's location when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The accident was one and one-half miles from the county border and 20 miles from his destination. Johnson was suspended from duty without pay for eight days for leaving his assigned post without permission. In a decision summarized at 17 ILWCLB 130, the Commission denied benefits, finding Johnson was engaged in a personal deviation at the time of his accident and the accident resulted from Johnson's misconduct. The Circuit Court reversed. Upon review, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit court.
At issue in this case was whether Johnson had completed his deviation and resumed a course of conduct related to the business of his employer at the time of the accident such that he could be considered in the course of his employment. The court explained that Johnson received instructions from his dispatcher, prior to his injuries, directing him to proceed to a specific location and assist a coworker, and he was involved in the accident en route to that location. Based on these facts, the court determined that the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn was that, at the time of his injury, Johnson was no longer embarked upon a personal deviation from his employer's business but was acting in the course of his employment.
As for Johnson's violation of the rules of his employment, the court explained that a determination must be made whether Johnson was, at the time of his accident, still acting within the sphere of his employment, notwithstanding the fact that he may have been in violation of the rules of his employment. An employee is acting within the sphere of his employment when he is performing the errand that he was directed to perform, and this errand was a part of his employment or an incident of it. In this case, Johnson was a deputy sheriff, driving a sheriff's patrol car and responding to an assignment from his dispatcher to assist another deputy sheriff. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that, at the time of his injury, Johnson was acting within the sphere of his employment and his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.
