Was Painter who Flipped Car Leaving BP Plant Entitled to Workers’ Comp?

What Do You Think?

An employee is generally covered by workers’ compensation if he’s injured while on his employer’s premises. But what if he’s injured on the road after his workday ends? 

That was the issue in the case of an industrial painter whose staffing company assigned him to work at a BP plant. At the end of each day, his supervisor drove him to the designated subcontractor parking lot on the property. As instructed, the painter would exit this lot onto Amoco Road, turn onto Flag Creek Road, and follow Flag Creek Road (which BP owned) before exiting the plant complex onto Cainhoy Road. 

One day, while heading home, he lost control of his vehicle on Flag Creek Road and flipped over into a ditch approximately one mile from the lot. He was severely injured. He sought benefits from the staffing company.

Ultimately, the Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission denied his claim. The panel found that the premises rule did not apply because the staffing company did not own, maintain, or control the road where the accident occurred. Therefore, the painter didn’t sustain his injuries in the course and scope of employment. The painter appealed.

The general rule in South Carolina is that an injury sustained by an employee away from the employer's premises while on his way to or from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment. One exception applies where there is an express or implied requirement in the employment agreement that the employee will use the location where he was injured in going to and leaving work.

Was the claim compensable?

A. Yes. BP owned Flag Creek Road and effectively required the painter to drive on it as part of his employment.

B. No. At the time of the injury, the painter had clocked out for the day, had left company grounds, and was on a street which the staffing company did not own.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Cook v. Condustrial, Inc., No. 2025-UP-313 (S.C. Ct. App. 09/10/25, unpublished), which held that the Appellate Panel erred when it denied the painter’s bid for benefits.

Do you have questions about compensability in your state? Get answers on Simply Research.

BP instructed the painter to use one of two roads to go home, the court stated. Those were the only two options for leaving. Further, the painter took the road that was the most direct route to his home.

Thus, the painter was injured on a BP-owned road he was instructed to use to access the area where he worked. That brought the place of injury within the course and scope of his employment.

The claimant’s “injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment because the injuries occurred on the premises of the BP plant to which he had been assigned,” the court wrote. 

The court reversed the Appellate Panel’s decision and sent the case back to the commission.

Share This Article: