Fields v. State of California
148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 15
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gadbois, a prison cook for Avenal State Prison, was injured on the job on April 3, 2008 and pursued workers’ compensation for medical treatment.
- She selected Central Valley Comprehensive Care for treatment after a different physician was recommended by the prison’s return-to-work coordinator.
- Gadbois attended a May 21, 2008 appointment and a follow-up May 28, 2008; she took time off work for the May 28 appointment.
- She telephoned her ASP supervisor to say she was en route to work after the CVCC appointment, and the accident occurred shortly thereafter.
- The State paid Gadbois her regular salary for the day of her death as a workday under a death benefit, not as workers’ compensation or leave pay; Gadbois was not driving a State vehicle and her duties did not require personal driving.
- Following Fields’s case, the trial court granted a nonsuit, finding Gadbois was outside the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State is liable under respondeat superior for Gadbois’s death-causing trip. | Fields argues Gadbois’s trip was within the scope of employment. | The State contends the going-and-coming rule applies and no exception is shown. | No, not within scope; no applicable exception. |
| Whether the going-and-coming rule is defeated by a special errand or other employer benefit. | Fields asserts a special errand or travel benefit tied to work duties. | State argues no special errand or meaningful employer benefit associated with travel. | No special errand or employer benefit established. |
| Whether Hinman’s travel-compensation rationale applies to create liability. | Fields relies on Hinman to show continued employer control via travel compensation. | Hinman is distinguishable; no comparable benefit here. | Hinman inapplicable; no scope of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (Cal. 1970) (employer liability for travel time when it expands labor market; not applicable here)
- Bailey v. Filco, Inc., 48 Cal.App.4th 1552 (Cal. App. 1996) (scope of employment requires more than salary payment; benefits to employer needed)
- Blackman v. Great American First Savings Bank, 233 Cal.App.3d 598 (Cal. App. 1991) (going-and-coming rule; exceptions require employer benefit)
- Tognazzini v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist., 86 Cal.App.4th 1053 (Cal. App. 2001) (special errand exception not apply where appointment not required by employer)
- Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc., 176 Cal.App.3d 1028 (Cal. App. 1986) (travel-related exceptions to going-and-coming rule analyze employer benefit)
- Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 14 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. App. 1993) (employer travel allowance; no liability where benefit not substantial)
- Laines v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 48 Cal.App.3d 872 (Cal. App. 1975) (workers’ compensation context; not controlling for respondeat superior)