Jane M. Shields

James Waches, a well compensated office equipment technician for American Office Systems (AOS), died in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company vehicle to work. His widow filed a workers' compensation claim. Ordinarily, the claim would have been denied under the "coming and going" rule, which states that an injury or death sustained by an employee traveling to or from a place of employment does not occur in the course of employment and, therefore, is not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. In this instance, however, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff-setting a precedent that has potential impact on all employers in Pennsylvania.

The "coming and going" rule has four exceptions. One exception is when a worker's employment contract includes transportation to and from work.
Waches had a written employment contract with AOS, but it said nothing about the AOS vehicle Waches drove for more than seven years. The contract was entered into after Waches had left AOS to work for a competitor and was recruited back to AOS. Before he resumed work with AOS, Waches insisted that the company provide him with a motor vehicle. As a result, a vehicle was provided to Waches. From the first day of his return to AOS until the date of his death, Waches drove an AOS vehicle to and from work.

In Waches v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that because the vehicle provided by AOS was incidental to the employment agreement negotiated with Waches, his widow was entitled to receive workers' compensation death benefits.
Providing a company car to an employee to drive to and from work increases the employer's risk under the Workers' Compensation Act, and may increase or limit the sources of compensation for injured employees.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com