## Facts

- Phillip Lee Mahan, Jr. was employed by a temporary labor agency, LFI Pierce, Inc. d/b/a Labor Finders, and assigned to work for Treesmith, Inc.; Labor Finders provided workers’ compensation coverage for him.
- Mahan and a crew performed storm-debris removal on a steep residential lot bordering Lake Tuscaloosa, repeatedly carrying heavy debris up approximately 160 steps.
- Conditions were extremely hot (about 98° to 100°F) with high humidity; workers were given frequent breaks and had access to water.
- Treesmith supervisor Dennis Robertson directed the work on site and supervised both regular Treesmith employees and temporary workers.
- During an afternoon work break, Robertson and other workers entered the lake to cool off; Mahan followed and drowned.
- Mahan’s minor children, through their mothers, sought workers’ compensation death benefits under Ala. Code § 25-5-60.
- Labor Finders contested compensability, arguing that entering the lake was a personal, recreational deviation from employment.
- The trial court, on stipulated facts and deposition evidence, awarded death benefits; Labor Finders appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Mahan’s drowning occurred “in the course of” employment or resulted from a substantial deviation for a personal objective.
2. Whether the drowning “arose out of” employment, i.e., was causally connected to employment conditions such as heat and physical exertion.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the award of workers’ compensation death benefits.
- Because the case was submitted without live testimony, the appellate court reviewed the trial court’s findings without a presumption of correctness.
- The court held that entering the lake to cool off during an oppressive-heat break, alongside the supervisor and coworkers, was incidental to employment and not a substantial deviation.
- The court concluded the drowning arose out of employment because the need to cool off was precipitated by the work’s strenuous nature and extreme heat at the lakeside worksite.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claimant must show the injury both “arose out of” and occurred “in the course of” employment.
- To determine whether an employee left the course of employment, courts assess whether the employee so departed from the business purpose as to pursue a personal purpose or objective.
- Acts reasonably undertaken for employee comfort or relief, when connected to work conditions, may be incidental to employment and remain within the course of employment.
- The “arising out of” requirement is satisfied when employment conditions create a causal connection to the risk and the activity that led to injury.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed death benefits because Mahan’s entry into the lake during a work break was a heat-relief measure tied to severe working conditions and supervised participation, making the drowning an accident arising out of and in the course of employment rather than a noncompensable recreational deviation.


LFI Pierce, Inc. v. Carter, 829 So. 2d 158 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)