## Facts

- Kash & Karry operated a large supermarket in Greenville, South Carolina, with two parking lots across adjacent streets and heavy customer use of the adjoining public sidewalks.
- James Howell worked for Kash & Karry as a checking clerk and stock boy.
- On December 30, 1971, Howell was directed to retrieve grocery carts from the parking lot across Mulberry Street.
- As Howell returned with carts, two boys snatched the purse of Clara Belk on the Mulberry Street sidewalk near the store entrance area.
- Belk and her sister had parked in Kash & Karry’s lot and were walking to the store to shop; the purse contained their money to make the intended purchase.
- Howell chased the boys to recover the purse; during the chase he hit a low fence, fell, and broke his arm.
- There was no evidence Howell knew Belk or knew she was a customer, and protecting customers was not part of his stated regular duties.
- The Industrial Commission awarded workers’ compensation benefits; the circuit court affirmed; the employer and its carrier appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Howell’s injury, sustained while chasing purse snatchers who targeted a prospective customer near the store, arose out of and in the course of his employment for workers’ compensation purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court’s order upholding the Industrial Commission’s award.
- The court held Howell’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The court treated the sidewalk/approach area as part of the employment environment because it was closely tied to customer movement between the store and its parking lots and was used in the store’s operations.
- The court concluded Howell acted in good faith to further the employer’s interests by attempting to aid a prospective customer and protect expected sales and customer relations.
- The court found sufficient evidentiary support for the Commission’s determination and declined to disturb it on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- In workers’ compensation, an injury may be compensable when an employee, though acting outside a precise job description, undertakes a good-faith act reasonably incidental to employment and intended to further or protect the employer’s interests.
- The “course of employment” can extend to areas not owned by the employer when those areas function as part of the employer’s business setting and are regularly used in the employer’s operations.
- Assisting or protecting customers (including prospective customers) may be treated as connected to employment when the act reasonably relates to the employer’s business and is prompted by circumstances arising in the work setting.
- On review of an administrative award, courts uphold the Commission’s findings if supported by evidence permitting the inference that the injury was work-related.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a workers’ compensation award because the employee’s pursuit of purse snatchers near the store, though not a formal duty, was a good-faith response arising from the retail work setting and reasonably connected to protecting the employer’s business interests and customers.


Howell v. Kash & Karry, 214 S.E.2d 821 (S.C. 1975)