Jex v. Labor Commission
275 P.3d 1078
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Jex was hired by Precision Excavating as a heavy equipment operator and injured in a July 22, 2008 one-car rollover while driving his personal vehicle home from a Cedar City work site.
- Precision provided limited shuttle transportation on a first-come, first-served basis; otherwise employees used their own vehicles for commuting and errands; compensation for travel time or fuel was not provided.
- Jex stored his personal tools in his truck and occasionally ran errands for Precision using his vehicle; Precision provided tools on site but did not require Jex to bring his own tools.
- During Cedar City work, Jex performed two errands using his own vehicle; in one instance this involved obtaining hydraulic fluid from Wheeler Machinery, which Precision rented for a track hoe.
- On the day of the accident, Jex offered to drive a late employee, Nick, home; Holden, the supervisor, indicated the option to transport Nick or leave him, and Jex ultimately transported James later that day, resulting in the fatal rollover.
- The Labor Commission denied workers’ compensation benefits under the going and coming rule; Jex challenged, arguing the vehicle was an instrumentality of Precision’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Jex's vehicle qualify as an instrumentality of Precision's business? | Jex argues the truck was used for employer benefit and integration into business. | Precision contends the vehicle was not an instrumentality; use was optional and not required. | No; vehicle not integrated to the employer's business to exempt from going-and-coming. |
| Did transporting James on the trip home constitute a special errand for the employer? | transporting James served Precision's business needs and benefits. | It was a unilateral, occasional accommodation not required by employment. | Not a special errand; falls within the going-and-coming rule. |
| Is the Commission’s decision reviewed under a conditioned standard of review? | Liberally construed to provide coverage; deferential review favors compensation where doubt exists. | Commission has discretion; should be reviewed for reasonableness and rationality. | Application of a conditionally deferential standard; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm'n, 153 P.3d 179 (Utah 2007) (Take-home car program analysis for the going-and-coming exception)
- Murray v. Labor Comm'n, 271 P.3d 192 (Utah App. 2012) (affirmed conditional deferential review framework in going-and-coming cases)
- VanLeeuwen v. Industrial Comm'n, 901 P.2d 281 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (mere arrival at work not enough to exempt from going-and-coming rule)
- Cross v. Board of Review, 824 P.2d 1202 (Utah Ct.App. 1992) (tools and commuting not inherently exempt from going-and-coming rule)
- Moser v. Industrial Comm'n, 440 P.2d 23 (Utah 1968) (truck used for employer business with full control may be instrumentality)
- Bailey v. Utah State Indus. Comm'n, 398 P.2d 545 (Utah 1965) (vehicle used regularly for employer's business can be instrumentality)
- State Tax Comm'n v. Industrial Comm'n, 685 P.2d 1051 (Utah 1984) (special errand concept for compensability)
- Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177 (Utah 1997) (liberally construed coverage; standard for review)