Norris v. Etec Mech. Corp.
69 Va. App. 591
| Va. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Norris, a master electrician employed by ETEC Mechanical, fell asleep while driving a company vehicle home from a job and crashed into a tree, sustaining serious injuries.
- The accident occurred about 200 yards from his home after an eight-hour workday; Norris testified he "dozed off," denied alcohol/drug use, and could not identify why he fell asleep.
- He characterized the preceding workweek as normal and did not claim unusually strenuous exertion or on-call duty.
- Norris filed for medical benefits and temporary total disability; the deputy commissioner denied the claim for lack of causal connection between work and the sleep-related crash.
- The Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed, finding Norris proved he was in the course of employment but failed to prove the injury "arose out of" his employment; it also considered and rejected the street risk doctrine.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Norris failed to prove the required causal "critical link" between his job duties and falling asleep while driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accident "arose out of" employment under the actual-risk test | Norris: driving home in a company vehicle while performing job duties put him where he was expected to be; employment was a proximate cause | Employer: No causal connection shown between work conditions and falling asleep; hazard was common to public | Held: Norris failed to show the required causal link; injury did not arise out of employment |
| Whether claimant must identify work-related cause for falling asleep | Norris: should not be required to prove a work-related factor caused him to fall asleep; mere driving for work suffices | Employer/Commission: claimant bears burden to prove causation by preponderance | Held: Court rejects Norris's contention; statutory burden remains and he failed to meet it |
| Applicability of the street-risk doctrine | Norris (and dissent): presence on public streets for employer makes street risks employment risks; compensable | Employer/Commission: street-risk only applies if the injury arose from an actual street risk tied to presence on streets | Held: Street-risk doctrine inapplicable—record does not show the crash resulted from a street-specific hazard (it resulted from dozing off) |
| Standard for review of Commission findings | Norris: (implicit) challenge to Commission denial | Employer: (implicit) Commission findings supported | Held: Mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo; factual findings upheld if supported by credible evidence; ultimate arising-out determination reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernard v. Carlson Cos.-TGIF, 60 Va. App. 400, 728 S.E.2d 508 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses street-risk rule and vehicular accidents on public roads)
- Hill v. Southern Tank Transp., Inc., 44 Va. App. 725, 607 S.E.2d 730 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (articulates two-prong street-risk test: duties require presence on streets and injury arose from an actual street risk)
- Conner v. Bragg, 203 Va. 204, 123 S.E.2d 393 (Va. 1962) (establishes claimant's burden to prove injury arose out of and in the course of employment)
- R & T Investments Ltd. v. Johns, 228 Va. 249, 321 S.E.2d 287 (Va. 1984) (probability of harm may be augmented by peculiar risks of the job)
- Southside Va. Training Ctr. v. Ellis, 33 Va. App. 824, 537 S.E.2d 35 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (describes the actual-risk test for arising-out causation)
- K & G Abatement Co. v. Keil, 38 Va. App. 744, 568 S.E.2d 416 (Va. Ct. App. 2002) (‘‘mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not caused by any work related risk, is not compensable’')