Wiley v. SAIF
337 Or. App. 63
Or. Ct. App.2024Background
- Shawn Wiley, a claimant, was injured when struck by a car while jaywalking across a busy public road from a parking space to his workplace.
- The employer-provided parking lot did not have enough spaces for all employees, requiring someone to park across the road.
- Wiley parked across the road on the day of his injury because he volunteered to do so for the benefit of the employer due to space limitations.
- Wiley was denied workers’ compensation coverage by SAIF and his employer based on the “going and coming” rule, which generally excludes injuries occurring while traveling to or from work.
- The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the denial, rejecting the applicability of both the “parking lot” and “greater hazard” exceptions.
- On judicial review, the Court of Appeals found that key factual questions regarding the employer's required parking arrangement and direction to jaywalk were unresolved, warranting remand for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of "parking lot" exception | Employer controlled parking situation | Employer controlled neither | Board’s determination upheld |
| Applicability of "greater hazard" exception | Required/provided for parking across road and jaywalking created greater hazard | Crossing posed no greater hazard; claimant wasn’t required | Not enough factual findings; remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Krushwitz v. McDonald's Restaurants, 323 Or 520 (Or. 1996) (Defines the “going and coming” rule and its exceptions for workers’ compensation).
- Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363 (Or. 1994) (Elaborates the “parking lot”/employer-control exception to the going and coming rule).