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: see also
citation_a.identifier: 597 A.2d 1116, 1120
citation_a.parenthetical: licensed practical nurse employed by nursing agency injured in automobile accident on way to work at hospital where sent by agency
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: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 176 S.E.2d 809, 813
citation_b.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_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).