Wiley v. SAIF, 562 P.3d 1131

Claimant Shawn Wiley was struck by a car and injured while jaywalking across a busy road from a parking space to his workplace.
Wiley filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was denied by SAIF and his employer, Pro Truck Dispatch LLC.
The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the denial, applying the “going and coming” rule to exclude coverage for injuries occurring while traveling to or from work.
Wiley contended that two exceptions should apply: the "parking lot" rule and the "greater hazard" rule.
The Board found that the employer did not control the parking lot or road where the accident occurred and that Wiley was not required to park across the road or jaywalk.
On judicial review, the Court of Appeals found the Board failed to resolve key factual questions regarding whether Wiley was effectively required to park across the road and jaywalk due to employer direction or endorsement.

Issue	Wiley's Argument	SAIF/Pro Truck's Argument	Held
Course & scope of employment (going/coming)	Injuries within course/scope due to exceptions to going/coming rule	Injuries excluded by general going/coming rule	Going/coming rule applies; exceptions must be assessed
Parking lot exception	Employer controlled or endorsed the parking across the busy road	No employer control over off-premises lot or street	Board’s denial supported by substantial evidence on this point
Greater hazard exception	Required to park & jaywalk, exposing to unique risk	Not required; no greater risk than public	Remanded for factual findings on requirement and hazard
Board’s findings	Failed to resolve if required by employer to park/jaywalk	Sufficient findings made	Remand necessary for factual resolution

Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants, 323 Or 520 (Or. 1996) (defines scope and exceptions of going and coming rule)
Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363 (Or. 1994) (interprets employer "control" regarding parking lot exception)