Worker's Injury in Company Housing Compensable

In Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 2010 WL 522782 (S.C.), Pierre, a legal resident, was recruited as a seasonal worker for Seaside Farms, a large tomato farm. Just after Pierre arrived in South Carolina from Florida and signed the requisite employment paperwork, the crew leader drove him to the housing supplied by Seaside Farms. After he put his clothing in his room and decided to walk outside to look around, Pierre fell on a wet sidewalk and fractured his ankle. He was supposed to begin work the next day.

Seaside Farms then terminated Pierre's employment, and he was not immediately able to obtain other employment due to his injury. Pierre filed a claim for workers compensation benefits, alleging he suffered his injury in the course and scope of his employment at Seaside Farms. Pierre asserted the accident took place in an employer-owned labor camp, the employer benefited from Pierre living at nearby housing, he was required by necessity to live there, and the accident occurred in the context of his reasonable use of the housing facility as contemplated by the employer. Pierre sought temporary total disability; causally-related medical treatment to date; and future medical treatment.

 

The hearing commissioner determined Pierre had not sustained a compensable injury because he was not injured during the course and scope of his employment. Specifically, the commissioner found Pierre “was under no requirement to live in the employer provided housing pursuant to his contract for employment” and his work did not require that he be on continuous call. In addition, he was not engaged in any activities that were calculated to further, either directly or indirectly, the business of his employer. Finally, the commission found the wet sidewalk where Pierre fell was not different in character or design from other sidewalks, and the risk associated with slipping on the sidewalk was not one uniquely associated with his employment.

 

The commission's appellate panel then upheld the hearing commissioner's order, and Pierre appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court also affirmed, concluding Pierre's accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with Seaside Farms because he was not performing any duties for his employer when the accident occurred. The court stated Pierre's proposed common-law theory of the “bunkhouse rule” was not applicable. The bunkhouse rule requires compensating employees who are injured while on an employer's premises if an employment contract or the necessity of work requires them to be there. The rule generally requires contemplating whether an employee's use of the premises constitutes a portion of their compensation. The court argued the rule did not apply because Pierre was not required to reside in the employer-supplied housing. Pierre appealed.

 

The Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that the bunkhouse rule should be applied here, as other jurisdictions had applied the bunkhouse rule under similar circumstances and found the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment where the employee was required, either by contract or by the nature of the work, to reside on the employer's premises. In such cases, the premises were considered an extension of the employer's primary work site. For the rule to apply, the injuries must have occurred during the employee's reasonable use of the premises and does include activities for personal comfort. The court stated it was clear from the record that Pierre was required, by the nature of his employment, to live on-site near the packing facility as there was no reasonable alternative and virtually all of the workers at Seaside Farms lived in the housing provided by their employer.

 

In addition, the court concluded the commission's finding that the risk was not associated with Pierre's employment because the sidewalk was no different in character from other sidewalks was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Pierre's accident occurred as a result of a hazard that existed on the employer's premises, i.e., Pierre slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk just outside the employees' housing facility. The sidewalk was wet because another person was using the outside sink and the water ran down the sidewalk. The employer's placement of the sink and the apparent lack of drainage created the wet conditions that caused Pierre to fall. Thus, the source of the injury was a risk associated with the conditions under which the employees were required to live. But for the fact that Pierre's work essentially required him to live on his employer's premises near the farm, he would not have been exposed to the risk that caused his injury. Further, it was undisputed that Pierre was making a reasonable use of the premises at the time of his injury.

 

Thus, the circumstances of Pierre's accident established the requisite work connection and compelled a finding that Pierre's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment at Seaside Farms.

 

Editor's Note: Over 50,000 migrant farm workers enter South Carolina each year for seasonal work, and almost all live in employer-provided housing while there, according to the S.C. Legal Services. The Pierre v. Seaside Farms ruling, which the court stated represented a “modern view” of employee-residence jurisprudence, should give new legal protection to such workers who suffer injuries in the state.