As many of our clients can attest, stable hands, grooms, and back-stretch workers play a vital role in the care and maintenance of horses and other farm animals. But who is responsible for the health and welfare of these workers? A recent Kentucky Supreme Court case, Gaines Gentry Thoroughbreds/Fayette Farms v. Mandujano, et al.,¹ shows that responsibility for these employees' safety often lies with the farm employer - even in seemingly remote circumstances.

It is common practice in the equine industry to require employee grooms to travel with horses during transport to races, auctions, or shows. The inherent unpredictability of Thoroughbreds necessitates constant attention from the grooms, who usually travel in the cabin of the transport van or trailer alongside the horses. Frequently, as was the case in Mandujano, grooms are left to find their own return transportation, especially when the groom needs or wants to stay following transport in order to participate in the sale or to perform temporary work for another client. Permitting or instructing grooms to participate in these one-way trips, however, can be riskier than many horse farm employers think and the farm's responsibility likely does not end upon the groom's arrival to the destination.

In 2007, Adan Mandujano was employed as a groom and stable hand for Gaines Gentry Thoroughbreds ("Gaines Gentry") in its Kentucky operation. On one occasion, Gaines Gentry instructed Mandujano to accompany several select yearlings to a horse sale in Saratoga, New York. Mandujano rode in the back of a van with the yearlings during the trip, and upon arrival he helped prep and show the horses.

Consistent with usual practice, Mandujano was left on his own to find his way back to Lexington because he wanted to remain at the sale for a few more days and to perform extra work for other consignors. There was no set date for his return to the Gaines Gentry farm and Gaines Gentry consented to him taking time off to conduct work for other consignors. Eventually, a friend offered to take Mandujano back to Lexington and he accepted. During this return trip Mandujano was seriously injured in an automobile accident.

Mandujano subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He argued that the accident and resulting injuries were related to his work with Gaines Gentry for several reasons: the travel that led to his injuries was a regular incident of his employment; travel to and from Saratoga involved an exception to the "going and coming" rule; and his employment exposed him to the risk of being sent to a horse sale with no offer of return transportation.

Gaines Gentry argued that Mandujano was not performing any duty related to his employment when he sustained his injuries and, therefore, the injury was not compensable through workers' compensation. The farm manager for Gaines Gentry testified that Mandujano's travel to Saratoga equated to a leave of absence and that his duties ended when the van reached Saratoga. Additionally, according to the farm manager, Mandujano could have traveled back to Lexington on the van he rode down on, or one similar.

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that Mandujanowas within the scope of his employment during his return travel. This holding ran contrary to the "going and coming" rule, whereby an employee is not typically compensated for injuries sustained in traveling to and from their regular work place.See, e.g., Harlan Colliers Co. v. Shell, 239 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. 1951). Ostensibly, Mandujano was traveling to his workplace-the Gaines Gentry farm in Lexington-when injured.

The ALJ, however, found that in this case the "traveling employee exception" applied to the going and coming rule. This exception applies when a worker's employment requires travel. Under this exception, an injury that occurs while the employee is engaged in necessary travel is work-related unless the worker makes a "significant departure" from the purpose of the trip. In this case, Mandujano was completing a "necessary and inevitable" journey initiated by Gaines Gentry and therefore was not engaged in a significant departure from its purpose.

What about the work that Mandujano performed, at his own request, for other consignors while at the sales in Saratoga? According to the ALJ, it "was not inconsistent with and did not conflict with the expectations, instructions, or interests of Gaines Gentry." Thus, the workers' compensation claim was appropriate and compensable.

The Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Gaines Gentry appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, where the court unanimously affirmed the decision in favor of Mandujano.

In its decision, the Supreme Court also analyzed the facts of the case under the "dual purpose doctrine," which applies where an employee's travel serves both a business and a personal purpose. Under this doctrine, a trip is personal if it would have been made without regard to the business purpose and would have been dropped in the event of the failure of the private purpose. A trip is work-related if it would have been made regardless of the private purpose, because the service to be performed for the employer would have caused the journey to be made by someone even if it had not coincided with the employee's personal journey.²

In applying the dual purpose doctrine, the Supreme Court found that the purpose of Mandujano's travel to Saratoga was in fact work-related and established as such before he ever embarked on the journey. This was not changed by the fact that he conducted supplementary business for another employer while there.

Mandujano should serve as a warning to horse operations employers that during one-way trips to horse sales, employers are responsible for grooms both while they travel to sales with the horses and also while they return on their own volition. This should undoubtedly have an impact on how horse farm owners handle grooms' travel plans.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, horse farm employers would be wise to not only make arrangements for grooms to travel to horse sales, but also for them to return. The Supreme Court gave no consideration to whether the method of travel chosen by Mandujano was appropriate or reasonable. If employers do not specify that grooms must return by way of the horse vans in which they traveled, then they should specify what transportation mode is acceptable - such as requiring that return trips be made by Greyhound bus on a specified day. Another option is to consider hiring independent contractors for the short duration of travel, which could help eliminate employer liability for any ensuing injuries.

In the equine industry, transporting prized and profitable horses safely to and from sales is always a top priority. After Mandujano, the transportation of grooms should also be of great concern.

¹ _{Gaines Gentry Thoroughbreds/Fayette Farms v. Mandujano, 366 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2012)}

_{² Craddock v. Imperial Casualty and Indemnity Co., 451 S.W.2d 658 (Ky. 1970).}