context: Even if the rationale underlying the going and coming rule did not exclude Nichols, the third enumerated exception to that rule would.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 211 Va. 279, 282
citation_a.parenthetical: where the employee on his way to or from work is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment
citation_a.sentence: LeWhite Constr. Co. v. Dunn, 211 Va. 279, 282, 176 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1970) (where the employee on his way to or from work is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment); Kent v. Virginia- Carolina Chemical Co., 143 Va. at 66, 129 S.E. at 331; see also Peterson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 597 A.2d 1116, 1120 (Pa. 1991) (licensed practical nurse employed by nursing agency injured in automobile accident on way to work at hospital where sent by agency).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 597 A.2d 1116, 1120
citation_b.parenthetical: licensed practical nurse employed by nursing agency injured in automobile accident on way to work at hospital where sent by agency
citation_b.sentence: LeWhite Constr. Co. v. Dunn, 211 Va. 279, 282, 176 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1970) (where the employee on his way to or from work is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment); Kent v. Virginia- Carolina Chemical Co., 143 Va. at 66, 129 S.E. at 331; see also Peterson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 597 A.2d 1116, 1120 (Pa. 1991) (licensed practical nurse employed by nursing agency injured in automobile accident on way to work at hospital where sent by agency).