## Facts

- Peter Nails worked for Market Tire Company for about ten years as head mechanic on a commission basis.
- On April 22, 1972, Market Tire discharged Nails after a dispute over recommended vehicle repairs the company considered unnecessary.
- As a condition of employment, Nails supplied his own tools, which were kept on the employer’s premises for work use.
- Two days after discharge, on April 24, 1972, Nails returned to the shop to retrieve his tools (about 800 pounds) and claimed a back injury while lifting them with assistance.
- Nails testified it was customary for the employer to allow separated employees two or three days to remove their tools.
- The circuit court denied workers’ compensation on the ground Nails was not an employee at the time of injury, without deciding whether an “accident” occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether an injury sustained after discharge, while returning within a customary period to retrieve tools required for the job and kept on the employer’s premises, arises out of and in the course of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment denying compensation and remanded for further proceedings.
- It held that Nails’s injury, if found accidental, occurred in the course of and arose out of the employment despite the earlier termination.
- The court relied on Maryland precedent recognizing compensability for injuries occurring on the employer’s premises during customary, employment-connected post-work activities (including collecting wages).

## Legal Principles

- The “course of employment” may extend beyond active work hours and beyond formal termination to a reasonable period for acts incidental to the employment relationship.
- An injury may be compensable when the worker is on the employer’s premises for an employment-related purpose carried out pursuant to established workplace custom.
- Where employment requires the worker to furnish and keep tools on the employer’s premises, retrieval of those tools within a customary, short post-separation period can be sufficiently employment-connected to satisfy both “in the course of” and “arising out of” requirements.
- A legal ruling that the activity is within the course of employment does not resolve remaining factual questions (e.g., whether an accidental injury occurred and its extent), which may be determined on remand.

## Conclusion

Because the employer required Nails to supply tools kept on-site and customarily allowed a brief period after separation for tool removal, Nails’s return to retrieve the tools was an employment-incidental activity on the premises within a reasonable time; therefore, the claim could not be denied solely on the ground that the employment had ended, and the case was remanded for further factfinding on compensability.


Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (Ct. Spec. App. 1975)