PJC General Negligence 2024

PJC 17.8

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —C OURSE & S COPE OF E MPLOYMENT

PJC 17.8

Employee Injured While Traveling with Dual Purpose— Instruction

Travel by an employee in furtherance of the affairs or business of the employer is in the course of employment if such travel is also in furtherance of personal or private affairs of the employee only if— 1. the travel to the place of occurrence of the injury would have been made even had there been no personal or private affairs of the employee to be furthered by the trip, and 2. the travel would not have been made had there been no affairs or business of the employer to be furthered by the travel. COMMENT When to use. If the worker’s injury occurred while he was traveling with the dual purpose of personal and business-related activities, PJC 17.8 should be added to the question and definition in PJC 17.1. PJC 17.8 should be used in dual-purpose travel cases when the employee is not traveling to and from the place of employment. See Leordeanu v. American Protection Insurance Co. , 330 S.W.3d 239, 248 (Tex. 2010). If there is no mixture of personal and business purposes, no submission of the dual purpose instruction is permissible. Johnson v. Pacific Employers Indemnity Co. , 439 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tex. 1969). Source of instruction. PJC 17.8 is based on Tex. Lab. Code §401.011(12)(B). The dual-purpose rule was discussed extensively in Leordeanu , 330 S.W.3d 239. If an employee’s travel in furtherance of the employer’s business is mixed with the employee’s personal reasons, the employee must meet the dual-purpose test set forth in Tex. Lab. Code §401.011(12)(B). For cases discussing the dual-purpose doctrine, see St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Confer , 956 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, writ denied); Johnson , 439 S.W.2d 824; and Meyer v. Western Fire Insurance Co. , 425 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1968).

258