Lastly, I have considered WCAT-2008-01866, Makhani v. Diener et al., which involved a plaintiff who had driven five miles to a particular restaurant while waiting for a supplier to complete some work. In that decision, the panel, at page 16, had difficulty concluding that a five-mile drive to a restaurant to have lunch amounted to a distinct departure on a personal errand, because such a conclusion “would seem to unduly limit the extent to which a worker could exercise some degree of personal choice as to where the worker wished to have lunch, and thereby place an artificial constraint on the provision of workers’ compensation coverage for travelling workers.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.