Jex v. LBR CMMN, 2013 UT 40

Layne Jex, a heavy equipment operator for Precision Excavating, commuted in his personal pickup to a worksite ~60 miles away; the employer provided a meeting spot and a company truck for carpooling.
Jex usually drove his own truck, transported co-workers on some occasions, carried personal tools and occasional company hydraulic fluid, and twice ran errands for Precision while on the clock.
On the commute home in his personal truck a tire failure caused a rollover; Jex sought workers' compensation benefits which were denied under the "going and coming" rule.
Jex argued his truck was an "instrumentality" of Precision because its use conferred benefits to the employer, bringing his commute within the course of employment.
The ALJ and Labor Commission found employer control was minimal, the vehicle’s benefits were limited/occasional, and denied benefits; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the "going and coming" rule bars coverage for Jex's commuting injury	Jex argued exceptions apply because his vehicle was used for employer benefit, so commute was within course of employment	Precision argued ordinary commute is outside course of employment and the specific uses did not convert the vehicle to an employer instrumentality	Going and coming rule applies; commute was outside course of employment
Whether Jex's personal truck was an "instrumentality" of the employer (all-purpose)	Jex: carrying coworkers, tools, errands conferred benefit and made the truck an instrumentality even without formal employer control	Precision: use was occasional/employee-initiated, employer control/direction lacking, benefits not substantial or regular	Instrumentality exception requires both employer control and meaningful benefit on a sliding scale; Jex's truck was not an all-purpose instrumentality
Whether unresolved doubts about the law/facts require resolving in favor of claimant	Jex claimed any doubt should be resolved for coverage	Precision argued that "benefit of doubt" only applies where adjudicator reaches a genuine dead heat after full fact/law application	Court clarified benefit-of-doubt applies only to genuine, post-adjudication ties; no such close question here, so no presumption for Jex

Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 398 P.2d 545 (Utah 1965) (recognized instrumentality exception where employer control and substantial service to employer were present)
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Commission, 153 P.3d 179 (Utah 2007) (discussed benefit-focused, utilitarian assessment of employer involvement in take-home vehicle context)
Black v. McDonald’s of Layton, 733 P.2d 154 (Utah 1987) (incidental morale benefits insufficient to make activity within course of employment; employer initiative/control relevant)
Lundberg v. Cream O’Weber/Federated Dairy Farms, Inc., 465 P.2d 175 (Utah 1970) (use of personal car not integral to business where not required)
Moser v. Industrial Commission, 440 P.2d 23 (Utah 1968) (vehicle use found within employment where taking truck to terminal was plaintiff’s duty and necessary for business)
Cross v. Industrial Commission, 824 P.2d 1202 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (ride-sharing of mutual convenience not sufficient employer control/benefit to defeat going-and-coming rule)
Whitehead v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 801 P.2d 934 (Utah 1990) (employer control and benefit are primary considerations in going-and-coming analysis)