between PCC and Bruhn. Further, the trial court erred in ruling that even if PCC were Bruhn’s employer, her injury did not occur in the course of her employment because she was not injured on the employei’’s premises. As a general rule where employees have fixed hours and a place of work, injuries which occur on the employer’s premises while the employee is going to and from work, before or after working hours, or at lunchtime, are compensable. See, e.g., Doctor’s Bus. Serv. Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johns v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 485 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); City of St. Petersburg v. Cashman, 71 So.2d 733 (Fla.1954). Conversely, if the injury occurs off the premises, the injury w 194, 534 N.E.2d 1226, 1227 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. State of Conn./Univ. of Conn., 4212
holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding the employee was clearly within the zone of her employment even though not at her work station because she was on the universitys premises the campus holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants holding that even though a visitor may be an invitee when she first enters the premises her status may change to licensee while she is there if the use to which she puts the property is not within the scope of the invitation