Kolomiets v. Syncor International Corp.
Connecticut Supreme Court
252 Conn. 261, 746 A.2d 743 (2000)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Syncor International Corporation (Syncor) (defendant) employed Gregory Kolomiets (plaintiff) as a part-time delivery driver. While making deliveries one day, Kolomiets discovered that he had left his wallet and driver’s license at home. Kolomiets did not know whether Syncor had more deliveries for him to make that day, so instead of returning directly to Syncor’s offices by the route that was recommended but not required by Syncor, Kolomiets drove one exit farther to go home and retrieve his license. After exiting the interstate, Kolomiets was involved in an accident and was injured. Syncor argued that Kolomiets was not acting in the course or scope of his employment when the accident occurred and that Kolomiets was, therefore, not entitled to workers’-compensation benefits. The workers’-compensation commissioner found that the deviation from Kolomiets’s job duties was minor and not so unreasonable as to preclude Kolomiets from receiving benefits. The workers’-compensation review board (board) reversed the commissioner’s ruling, finding that Kolomiets was engaged in a separate side trip when he was injured and was not acting in the course of his employment. The court of appeals then reversed the board’s decision and reinstated the commissioner’s ruling. Syncor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Norcott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
