Justin D. Buchanan v. Dept Of Labor And Industries Of The State Of Wa
74565-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Justin D. Buchanan, a carpenter employed through placement agency Madden Industrial Craftsmen, commuted by public transit and kept his personal tools (≈100 lb backpack) for jobs; workers supply and maintain their own tools.
- While working on a Fremont project, Buchanan left his tools on site after being released early and was later told the job ended; he accepted a new assignment through Madden but did not inform Madden he had left tools at the site.
- Buchanan returned to the Fremont site in the evening to retrieve his tools, began his commute home on crowded light rail and bus, developed back pain, fell, and was diagnosed with a spinal disk decompression.
- The Department of Labor & Industries denied industrial insurance benefits; the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the superior court granted summary judgment for the Department, holding the injury was not in the course of employment under the going-and-coming rule.
- Buchanan appealed, arguing the trip to retrieve tools fell within the dual-purpose (business/personal) exception or otherwise constituted acting in furtherance of his employer’s business; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury occurred "in the course of employment" under the IIA | Buchanan: trip to retrieve tools was a dual-purpose trip necessary for work the next day (so within employment) | Department: trips between home and work are outside course of employment; no evidence Madden required retrieval or that trip furthered employer's business | Held: Not in course of employment; going-and-coming rule applies and dual-purpose exception does not cover this trip |
| Whether dual-purpose exception applies | Buchanan: retrieving tools served employer’s interest because Madden profited if he could work next day | Department: no record that Madden required tool retrieval or would have sent someone else; tools were personal | Held: Exception requires a business necessity or employer direction; Buchanan did not meet that showing |
| Whether other precedents (e.g., Cochran) support coverage | Buchanan: analogized to Cochran (company interest in maintenance) | Department: Cochran involved an employer-mandated vehicle duty; facts differ here | Held: Cochran distinguishable; employer requirement was key in Cochran and is absent here |
| Whether travel that "furthers" employer's business is an independent exception | Buchanan: travel that furthers employer's business should be covered | Department: argued following precedent and record facts; challenged lack of authority for Buchanan's proposition | Held: Court declined to adopt an independent rule absent authority and record support |
Key Cases Cited
- Cochran Electric Co., Inc. v. Mahoney, 129 Wn. App. 687, 121 P.3d 747 (distinguishing employer-required vehicle-maintenance trip as within employment)
- Belnap v. Boeing Co., 64 Wn. App. 212, 823 P.2d 528 (going-and-coming rule principle)
- Hobson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 176 Wash. 23, 27 P.2d 1091 (examples of on-duty or employer-directed travel contexts)
- MacKay v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 181 Wash. 702, 44 P.2d 793 (employer-directed travel for equipment repair held within employment)
- Leary v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 18 Wn.2d 532, 140 P.2d 292 (on-duty travel using personal vehicle during business day)