Todd L. Hamilton v. Alpha Services, LLC, 351 P.3d 611

Todd Hamilton, an Idaho resident, worked for Alpha Services at a remote logging operation in Wyoming; the work area included an active jobsite, a storage container ~100 ft from Highway 230, and the routes between them.
On December 7, 2011, Hamilton finished an early shift, drove a company service truck (violating policy by running a personal errand to buy groceries), called his wife saying he was tired, ill, and had to return to the jobsite, and then was fatally struck while making a left turn from Highway 230 toward Alpha’s storage container.
Alpha had required trucks (and employees) to travel regularly between the active logging site and the storage container across Highway 230; Leo (a co-worker) was at the container retrieving supplies at the time of the crash.
Hamilton’s widow filed a workers’ compensation claim; the Industrial Commission found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded death benefits; it denied attorney fees under I.C. § 72-804.
Alpha and its surety appealed, arguing insufficient substantial and competent evidence that the accident was work-related and that the coming-and-going rule barred recovery; the Commission’s factual findings were affirmed by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether accident arose out of and in the course of employment	Hamilton was returning to employer property and acting to further employer’s interests (wife’s call, regular travel between sites)	No substantial evidence he was on work business; he was running a personal errand and finished shift	Affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports Commission finding it arose out of employment
Applicability of coming-and-going rule	Exception: the accident occurred within Alpha’s place of business (travel between container and jobsite)	Employee was merely “coming to” work and not covered by exception	Held: coming-and-going rule inapplicable because route and container were part of employer premises/regular work area
Presumption of compensability under I.C. § 72-228	Presumption applies where death and prima facie evidence exist	Presumption rebutted by defendants	Court: presumption available but not necessary—the factual findings independently support compensability
Award of attorney fees under I.C. § 72-804 (below)	Dependents: defendants contested without reasonable ground; fees should be awarded	Defendants: their challenge had merit; denial proper	Not reviewed on appeal (respondent failed to cross-appeal); Commission’s denial stands
Attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 72-804	Dependents seek fees because appeal merely reweighed evidence	Defendants contest merits	Fees on appeal awarded (appeal merely reweighed Commission evidence)

Eacret v. Clearwater Forest Indus., 136 Idaho 733 (standard of review for Industrial Commission factual findings)
Dinius v. Loving Care & More, Inc., 133 Idaho 572 (distinguishing employer-related risk from personal risk)
Pitkin v. W. Const., 112 Idaho 506 (coming-and-going rule and its exceptions)
Cheung v. Wasatch Elec., 136 Idaho 895 (elements required to prove compensable injury)
Kessler on Behalf of Kessler v. Payette Cnty., 129 Idaho 855 (two-pronged test: arose out of and in the course of employment)
Nichols v. Godfrey, 90 Idaho 345 (employee need not be on the clock for injury to be in the course of employment)
In re MacKenzie, 55 Idaho 663 (employee acting to serve employer’s interests can be in course of employment)
Wutherich v. Terteling Co., 135 Idaho 593 (attorney fees on appeal when appeal merely reweighs Commission evidence)