Fatal Shooting of SC Motel Worker Found Compensable Under “Bunkhouse Rule”
The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed a decision by the Appellate Panel of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that awarded death benefits to the children of a motel worker who, along with her husband, was shot and killed in an apparent robbery at the motel [Patel v. BVM Motel, LLC, 2021 S.C. App. LEXIS 31 (Mar. 31, 2021)]. Applying the “bunkhouse rule” [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 24.03], the Court noted that the conditions of the decedent’s employment required that she live on the premises and be subject to call day or night. Moreover, at the time of her death, she was wearing her uniform, with name tag affixed. The Court said substantial evidence supported the Appellate Panel’s findings.
Background
Decedent was employed as a housekeeper at the Best Western motel adjacent to I-95 in Yemassee. As a condition of her employment, Decedent was required to live at the motel and be on call when on the premises—she did not clock in or out. Decedent lived in the provided room with her husband, who, while not on Best Western’s payroll, helped with various tasks as directed by management. At approximately 8:01 a.m. on August 16, 2015, an intruder, who was neither an employee nor a registered motel guest, fatally shot Decedent and her husband during a robbery.
Decedent’s children sought workers’ compensation death benefits. The employer denied the claim, contending Decedent’s death did not arise out of the employment. The single commissioner found the death compensable, noting that Decedent was required to live on the premises, and was subject to call, day or night. At a hearing before the Appellate Panel, the employer contended there was no link between Decedent’s employment and her assault during the armed robbery.
Claimants countered that under the so-called “bunkhouse rule,” Decedent’s death arose out of and in the course and scope of her employment because Decedent and her husband were required to be on the motel premises at all times and were essentially on duty day and night. Both were dressed for work—wearing company uniforms—when their bodies were found at the motel. The Appellate Panel affirmed on the issue of liability. It modified the single commissioner’s determination as to average weekly wage. The employer appealed.
Bunkhouse Rule in South Carolina
The appellate court turned to the leading South Carolina case on the bunkhouse rule, Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 386 S.C. 534, 689 S.E.2d 615 (2010), and observed that merely being on an employer’s premises, without more, did not automatically confer compensability for an injury.
The court said substantial evidence supported the Appellate Panel’s findings that Decedent was shot and killed while on call on Best Western’s premises, where she was required to live and be on call 24/7 as a condition of her employment. There was no evidence the assault was personally motivated, and there is no evidence it was caused by any condition peculiar to her. Decedent was dressed for work, with her name tag affixed, when she was killed. The court added that while the supreme court had never stated an injury must stem from a particular hazard or risk of the employment, the court could not ignore that the requirement that Decedent live at the interstate-adjacent motel brought about her exposure to the armed robbery that led to her death. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Panel’s determination that Decedent’s death arose from her employment and was compensable under the Act.