*1 No. 31945. Dec. [L.A. 1984.] PRICE, Petitioner,
ANDREW LEO v. BOARD, WORKERS’ APPEALS COMPENSATION M al., & B PAPER et PRODUCTS Respondents.
Counsel Rose, Marias, Klein & Michael H. and Alan for Pinchak J. Stein Petitioner. Robert R. Dickinson and Dickinson & Hester for Respondents.
Opinion BIRD, C. J. Does the rule” an award of “going coming preclude workers’ compensation benefits to an while employee who is injured waiting for his place employment to open?
I. 20, 1980, Approximately 7:50 a.m. on June Andrew Leo petitioner, Price, injured was outside his Price had arrived at place work at 7:45 Since a.m. no lot for parking, was Price provided parked his car on the same side of the street as his employer’s premises. a.m.,
Although job Price’s he arrived at officially began generally work Often arrived early. were before 8 a.m. If he premises early open time Closing
and the doors Price usually begin working. were would open, to work. was 4:30 of when started p.m., actually regardless on directly The wide and fronted was half a block employer’s building could the sidewalk. employees There was no on the where premises fact, access wait if not they gain arrived could early. employees at all until the doors were unlocked. premises accident, early. On the work How- of the Price intended start morning ever, the doors neither nor to the were locked and his supervisor’s not he his boss’s car was Since he could enter nearby. premises, parked car he waited. As decided to of oil into of his while put quart engine car, the oil Price left and extended into his straddled the put headlight He now seeks to the A struck Price’s right leg passing leg. side. car injuries. those compensation “in Price
The workers’ was judge found of the on the em- course Price was physically employment.” Although occurred, to be admit- when the accident ployer’s premises waiting Further, ted to work. held that pouring the workers’ compensation judge a car that did not abrogate oil into was an act of convenience” “personal the employment relationship. reconsideration, Board Appeals the Workers’
Upon Compensation rule.” (board) The rescinded the award based on the “going when board relied on Price on the employer’s premises the fact that was not Therefore, he was that he had not injured. they completed concluded (See Workers’ Comp. Appeals work. General Co. v. journey Ins. *6 417, 595, (hereafter 546 (1976) 16 Cal.3d 600 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 1361] [128 Chairez).)
II. (Act) Act An liable under Workers’ is employer Compensation Code, in the course (Lab. for out of and injuries “arising 3201 et seq.) § rule Code, (Lab. 3600.j1 coming The and going of the employment.” § that statutory requirement. that define among created doctrines judicially 585, 588 (1983) 33 (Parks v. Bd. Cal.3d Comp. Appeals [190 Workers’ 158, 382]; Appeals Workmen’s Bd. Comp. v. Hinojosa 660 P.2d Cal.Rptr. The 456, 1176].) 501 rule (1972) 150, 8 Cal.3d 153 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [104 compensation “Liability for the provides part in follows: 1Labor Code section 3600 as shall, against an negligence, exist by regard this without provided division . . . of of in the course any injury arising her out and by employees sustained his or . .” . .
565 that an provides suffered a local commute enroute to a fixed “during of business at fixed in of or hours the absence special extraordinary such, circumstances” is not within the course of As it is not (Id., at 157.) compensable. p.
As Justice Tobriner noted in rule had Hinojosa, and has going coming 156.) “tortuous 8 Much history.” (Hinojosa, supra, Cal.3d at p. criticized and subject numerous the rule is difficult to exceptions, apply Parks, (See 4; uniformly. 33 supra, Hinojosa, Cal.3d at 589 & fn. p. supra, 156; 8 at p. (1978) Cal.3d Bramall Workers’ 78 Comp. Appeals v. Bd. 151, 156 105].) the rule nor its Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. Neither excep [144 tions are susceptible “automatic 8 (Hinojosa, supra, Cal.3d application.” 156.) at Each case p. (Id., must be on own at judged its facts.” “unique 155; 698, Makins p. (1926) v. Industrial Acc. Com. 198 Cal. 703 P. [247 202, 49 A.L.R. accidents are soby many vary produced 411] [“Industrial ing circumstances that it is rather any unusual to find two or more cases that may Bramall, be ruled the same 78 legal precedent.”]; supra, at Cal.App.3d p. of rule has
Application been in “borderline difficult cases” especially where the hurt close to or on the imme 589; before or diately (Parks, after work. at also supra, p. Cal.3d see Cal. Cas. Ind. Exch. (1943) 751, v. Ind. Acc. Com. Cal.2d [135 158].) whether the determining going and rule bars coming case, must of particular courts abide mandate Labor Code 3202, section which that the Act “shall be provides liberally construed” to protect injured.2 doubts as to the rule’s Any application are to be resolved in favor of at coverage. (Hinojosa, 8 Cal.3d supra, 155-156; (1972) v. Dimmig Comp. Appeals Workmen’s Cal.3d 860, 433]; Bramall, 866-867 Cal.Rptr. 495 P.2d supra, Cal.App.3d
The issue presented coming here—whether the rule going ap an plies employee who has arrived but at work is unable to access gain to the premises—is a first The question impression. rule governs injuries incurred the course a local com “during (Chairez,
mute” 598) or “while to and travelling *7 (Parks, However, from work” 588). supra, 33 Cal.3d at it does not p. an apply to employee who has arrived at or her workplace. locked,
When Price the found doors to his he employer’s premises was at his Thus, “in place he was not the course injured 2Labor Code section provides provisions 3202 “The shall be as follows: of [the Act] liberally by construed the with their the purpose extending protec courts the benefits for persons injured tion of employment.” in the course of their
566 to work although, Price had finished his journey
of a local commute.” locked, prem- had not entered his yet employer’s because the doors were that where construction, court holds of the rule of liberal this ises. light to while waiting3 an outside the premises employee employer’s the admitted the course of the occurs within injury be to the workplace, and is compensable. “Although court has often held off-premises injuries compensable. This owned or con on premises of our decisions have involved many injuries a sine either attribute as trolled the we have refused to regard employer, (1975) Bd. (Lewis Comp. Appeals non for v. Workers’ qua compensation.” 225].) For exam 559, 353, 542 P.2d Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [125 rule the and coming provides the risk” ple, “special exception going injury causes where a associated with the employment risk Parks, 33 Cal.3d (See, the e.g., outside just employer’s premises. 490, 593; 63 Cal.2d 492- (1965) Com. v. Industrial Acc. Greydanus Co., 384, 296]; Navigation Freire v. Matson 407 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [47 supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. here because the be invoked need not risk
Although special exception by analogy supports not the exception rule does going coming apply, of his employ- within the course the conclusion that Price’s occurred injury ment. from
“If, injury an suffers prior entry premises, upon under compensable risk related to causally special employment, (Chairez, supra, rule.” and risk’ ‘special exception stated, risk exception implies 16 Cal.3d at More broadly special cir- distance, special measured “a zone of varying employment, the nature of employment.” cumstances of each case and defined by 745, 750 (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d (Lefebvre Comp. Appeals v. Workers’ 246].) Cal.Rptr. [165 morn- every time at the same
The were not premises opened or even early, Therefore, working wished to start an who ing. after to be unlocked for the doors be forced to wait promptly, might area or a not parking arrived at the The did provide workplace. fact, did the employees wait. In in which his could employees As were unlocked. before the doors have of the any access part stated, building the employer’s the workers’ compensation judge “[s]ince begin work is was to plaintiff before happened 3“The the accident some minutes fact that 809]; (1941) P.2d (Freire Navigation [118 Co. 19 Cal.2d immaterial.” v. Matson (1946) Acc. Com. accord Indem. Co. v. Industrial Pacific 18].) *8 sidewalk, right is next to the it is obvious that could not public applicant onto get the the to be He employer’s and wait for doors premises opened. Thus, had to the wait off when Price waited near his car for the premises.” to doors be he was the of the within “zone under opened, employment” of “special circumstances” this case. case, on the on
Relying the board denied the Chairez that Price in ground was not on the but was out the employer’s premises street when he was hit so-called car. The board invoked the passing rule, line” “premises test. “For the and coming] of purpose[s] [going the employment not relationship does until an enters the begin employer’s Prior to and rule premises. entry coming ordinarily going precludes recovery; after entry, compensable injury generally presumed ” as in the of arising (Chairez, course supra, Cal.3d at
However, line” test “premises should not preclude compensation Chairez, In here. walking was killed while across the street from away his and parked car toward the He was on his workplace. still toway work when the accident occurred he not yet because had reached the (Chairez, Price, on premises. Cal.3d at hand, other was no longer toward the when the accident traveling workplace Instead, occurred. he arrived, had and observed that he could not parked, gain access to the until of premises one arrived. superiors sum, Price’s does not within injury fall and going coming rule because Price had finished his commute and was be admitted waiting to his employer’s premises when the Price accident occurred. was forced to wait outside the premises because the no on the employer provided Moreover, for the to wait. employees early Price’s arrival was usually a benefit to the time uncompensat since worked extra ed.
The board that if the argues even and rule inap Price was plicable, not within employment. According course board, to the Price abandoned his relationship temporarily when decided to oil in be to the put his car while admitted waiting Price oil in car workplace. contends was an pouring “personal convenience” and compensable.
“ ‘ life, comfort, “Such acts as are necessary convenience work, himself, of the servant while at though strictly personal service, acts are service, and incidental to the sustained ’ ” thereof performance is deemed to have out of the employment.” arisen *9 568 505, 507 P. (1918) Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com. 178 Cal.
(Whiting-Mead [173 1105, Acc. Com. 1518]; 5 etc. v. Indus. Corp. A.L.R. accord Employers’ 567, (hereafter Burnett).) This (1940) 37 573 P.2d Cal.App.2d [99 1089] “ ‘is not limited court has noted that the convenience personal exception v. (State Ins. Fund Comp. acts on the performed employer’s premises.’” 925, (1967) 67 927-928 Cal.Rptr. Workmen’s Bd. Cal.2d Comp. App. [64 323, 619].) 434 P.2d course of employ Acts of are within the convenience” “personal “ (Pacific
ment if are they ‘reasonably contemplated by employment.’” 509, 625]; 514 (1945) Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. [159 Bd. Comp. App. accord North American Rockwell v. Workmen’s Corp. Saska); (hereafter Bur (1970) 9 158 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [87 774] nett, of the act 573.) Courts consider the nature 37 Cal. at supra, App.2d p. of the and the nature of the custom or usage employment, the employment, Saska, contract, (Ibid.; and “other factors.” the terms of the employment 158.) In view of the favoring employee at supra, Cal.App.3d policy by reasonably contemplated doubts as to whether an act is compensation, Burnett, (Ibid.; are resolved in favor of the employee. employment 573-574.) at Cal.App.2d pp. in hearing The evidence at the workers’ presented time not at the same dicated that the doors to the were opened workplace were not but at times they were every Usually they early, morning. opened outside Waiting unlocked until after the official time of a.m. starting was, the em therefore, “reasonably contemplated employer’s premises ployment.” noted, are waiting people
As the workers’ compensation judge “[w]hen in one ‘they occupy.’” stand something they rarely spot; happen, However, time oil by adding Price made use of the instead idly pacing, “normal, but was proper car. His act unreasonable” “wholly was (Saska, supra, Cal.App.3d pp. to be reasonably expected.” work is begin task while waiting a minor Performing personal Therefore, contem it is within the reasonable “normal human response.” the court Saska (Id., at As of the contract. plation out, taking without “[hjuman be employed services cannot pointed Appeals (Ibid.; Comp. Co. v. Workers’ Indemnity whole Fremont package.” 847].) (1977) 170, 177 69 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. employ- reasonably contemplated Price’s conduct was Although convenience” ment, the board contends that Price’s “personal him to did not perform because it help not within his course of employment between the However, personal nexus strong his work more efficiently. *10 (See, act and increased to coverage. is a efficiency e.g., prerequisite v. Industrial Acc. 710 P.2d (1934) Com. 219 Cal. 911] [em [28 Leffert hit a car while burned to retrieve ployee by building enroute employer’s Com., overcoat]; his Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. 509 supra, Pacific while after [agricultural workers drowned in reservoir irrigation washing up Burnett, work]; 37 “on supra, 574 servant call” Cal.App.2d at p. [domestic dress].) hurt while a “While rationale is still reflected hemming [the benefit] decisions, in the it from . . . an examination of the cases that apparent benefit to the was and in little more than employer some cases presumed (Saska, 160.) fiction.” 9 supra, Cal.App.3d at p. Saska,
In the in was after work the employee employer’s parking lot he tried to as start the car a court in Saska of coworker. The questioned the of the a continuing utility benefit as rationale the principle employer Nevertheless, personal convenience rule. the cites goodwill opinion among a employees as benefit to the in potential just case “the element employer, of ‘benefit’ any (Saska, retains 9 validity supra, at today.” Cal.App.3d Saska, Under the benefit test in the here applied employer was car, benefited work, because Price was that his which he drove to ensuring Burnett, (See remained operable. 37 573-574 supra, Cal.App.2d at pp. [em “ ployee’s her hemming dress furthered her work ‘in a remote ” sense’ because she was to be “neat in dress and required general appear ance”].)
Moreover, car, as Price put oil in his benefit the em provided ployer by the waiting near so he enter work could and as begin soon as the doors were unlocked. in Although Price was engaged personal act, he was also Therefore, serving interests. injury may be viewed as occurring within the course of under the “dual employment purpose” rule. own employee combining his busi “[W]here ness with of that or employer, to both at the same attending substantially time, no nice will be made inquiry as which business was actually in at time of engaged it di injury, clearly unless neither appears or rectly could indirectly (Lockheed he have been serving employer.” Corp. v. Ind. Acc. (1946) Com. 28 758-759 P.2d Cal.2d [172 Aircraft 1]; Bramall, accord 78 at supra, Cal.App.3d
The dual doctrine as an to the purpose generally exception applies coming rule when an is hurt a local com during who mute is work taking (Bramall, home with him. 78 supra, Cal.App.3d 156.) It is also invoked when an accident in the course of a business occurs or errand trip which the busi during personal takes care some (Lockheed, 756; (1941) ness. Naylor Cal.2d Matthews v. 758].) addition, In Cal.App.2d dual doctrine has purpose been hold that within activity an leisure time applied employee’s the em- course where it was employment, reasonably contemplated (See Dimmig, and benefited as well as the employee. ployment employer 864-866, cited.) cases supra, Cal.3d pp. with court an incurred connection this held that Dimmig,
attendance at school was night reasonably contemplated it (Dimmig, supra, because benefited the as well as the employee. *11 865-866.) between the personal Cal.3d at falls somewhere pp. Dimmig convenience convenience and the dual As in personal doctrines. purpose cases, to the court test and “reasonably pointed applied contemplated” However, at school is (Ibid.) the benefit attendance night to employer. im- act which not an of or convenience” temporarily comfort “personal the “dual is more akin to proves efficiency. Dimmig purpose” to the em- cases where an a direct benefit activity off-premises provides Bramall, (See and benefits as well. ployer case].) 156-157 a “dual at as Cal.App.3d pp. [treating Dimmig purpose” oil of This case involves elements of both rules. Pouring quart or into his car while of comfort work an “act waiting begin personal of within the course convenience” that is “reasonably contemplated” addition, Price’s falls within the dual purpose Price’s injury at arriving doctrine because he was a benefit to his providing employer the two better fits work court need not determine which of rules early. This at (See the facts of case. Indemnity, supra, Cal.App.3d this Fremont be activity reasonably contemplated was point “[T]he of in a particular because its nature as a normal human general response (Saska, . situation . . .” supra, Cal.App.3d
III. injured, Price within the when was was course of car him after A struck should be for his compensated injuries. passing the doors he had he was for finished his to work and while journey waiting not sustained of his The was to be unlocked. premises rule does commute” and coming the course of a so the “during local not apply. decided to did when he
Price not abandon relationship his employment Pouring oil to while enter employer’s premises. add his car waiting contemplated into a reasonably oil car is an act convenience personal occasion, included, outside on wait under circumstances which Moreover, con- Price’s to be unlocked. the doors employer’s premises rule. under dual purpose duct was the course his employment within heAs oil into his car he was the interests of his poured serving near the waiting work begin early.
Accordingly, decision of and the remanded the board is annulled cause for further with proceedings consistent the views herein. expressed
Mosk, J., Kaus, J., Broussard, J., J., Grodin, J., con- Reynoso, curred.
LUCAS, J. I respectfullydissent. Price Applicant outside the work premises, working before hours, while in an engaged Under personal convenience. such cir- cumstances, his injuries were not under the workers’ compensable compen- *12 sation laws.
The majority holds all injuries that while occur to the awaiting entry employment are (Ante, 565-566.) I compensable. fail to see pp. how the act of awaiting entry working hours ordinary reasonably before bemay deemed to arise “out of and in the course of the employment.” (Lab. Code, Moreover, I think it is § anomalous that compensation one, must be granted to such as who is while applicant, injured attending car, but parked is denied to an who has already car left and is injured while (General toward his walking Ins. Co. v. workplace. Workers’ Comp. (Chairez) Bd. Appeals (1976) 598-600 [128 417, 546 Cal.Rptr. test].) Surely, line” [adopting “premises 1361] in neither ended, case has the ordinary morning “commute” for in neither case has the employee entered the actually work This fact is even premises. here, more apparent where the injury occurred before hours had working commenced.
Nor was any risk” created in “special this case which might make inapplicable Contrary rule. to the major- ity’s characterization, was not “forced” to wait in a applicant such as the danger in Parks v. Workers’ applicant Comp. Appeals (1983) 33 Cal.3d 585 660 P.2d Cal.Rptr. injured (applicant 382] while stuck in usual school traffic heavy outside There was no workplace). indication in the record that herein applicant subjected any was regularly delay work access or to any foreseeable risk or that injury, any prior, similar accidents had essence, ever taken place. applicant while in an engaged convenience benefit to his personal of no em- should Workers’ hours. to his ordinary working prior
ployer, circumstances. not be available under those benefits. board’s decision denying I would affirm the