Jex v. Utah Labor Commission, 306 P.3d 799

Jex, a Precision Excavating heavy equipment operator, was injured in a rollover while driving home in his personal vehicle after working at a Cedar City area jobsite.
Jex initially applied for workers’ compensation, which was denied under the going and coming rule.
Jex argued an instrumentality exception should apply because his vehicle benefited Precision and was used for employer purposes.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, finding the employer did not control the vehicle use or receive a substantial benefit.
The Utah Labor Commission and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the going and coming rule and rejecting the instrumentality argument.
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, adopting a sliding-scale test balancing employer control and benefits and holding Jex’s vehicle was not an instrumentality of Precision’s business.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instrumentality exception applies to a commuting injury	Jex’s vehicle was an instrumentality benefiting Precision.	The vehicle’s use was incidental and not controlled by Precision.	Not applicable; vehicle not an all-purpose instrumentality.
How to measure instrumentality: control and benefit under a sliding scale	Any substantial employer benefit suffices if there is some control.	Control must be present and benefits substantial.	Both factors matter on a sliding scale; need both or a strong showing of one with significant control.
Whether a doubt about the instrumentality exception favors coverage	There are unresolved questions that should favor coverage under the doubt doctrine.	Doubt must be resolved against coverage unless truly dead heat.	Benefit-of-the-doubt principle is narrow; apply law to facts; denial affirmed.

Bailey v. Industrial Commission, 398 P.2d 545 (Utah 1965) (instrumentality requires employer control and benefits conferred)
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Commission, 153 P.3d 179 (Utah 2007) (benefit-centered, utilitarian view with employer involvement; not to be extended beyond facts)
Whitehead v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 801 P.2d 934 (Utah 1989) (employer control as major premise in going and coming cases)
Cross v. Indus. Comm’n, 824 P.2d 1202 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (mutual convenience vs. employer directive; not within course of employment when not required)
Black v. McDonald’s of Layton, 733 P.2d 154 (Utah 1987) (benefits alone not dispositive; control and connection to employment matter)