COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
Abandonment
To decide whether a worker's intoxication evidenced an abandonment of employment the Board will consider evidence of the worker's tolerance for alcohol and demeanor, behavior and speech immediately prior to the accident. In the absence of such testimony, the intoxication, together with eyewitness testimony of erratic driving, is sufficient to establish that the worker had abandoned the course of employment by reason of intoxication. ….Michael Pate, Dec'd., 97 1977 (1999) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Thurston County Cause No. 99-2-090250-9.]
Aggressor doctrine
The aggressor doctrine is generally applied in cases where an injury results from an assault which is an intentional act and not likely to be in furtherance of the employer's business, as opposed to acts of horseplay which may be an expected lunch period activity. ....Vince Polmanteer, 88 0362 (1989) [dissent] [Editor's Note: The Board has abandoned the aggressor in favor of a broaden course of employement analyze as used in In re Standley Murebu, BIIA., 37,335 (1972)
A worker injured during a fight which he instigated with his employer was not in the course of employment at the time of the injury. ....Peter Patterson, 53,306 (1980)
A worker's single act of swinging his fist at a co-employee who had placed his hand on the worker's shoulder, when considered against the background of longstanding animosity between the two, including an exchange of sharp words earlier that day, was insufficient to remove the worker from the course of employment. ....Stanley Murebu, 35,335 (1972)
"Arising out of employment" test distinguished
An off jobsite assault on a worker, possibly motivated by the fact he had crossed a striking employees' picket line, did not qualify as an industrial injury because the worker was not in the course of employment at the time. An "arising out of employment" test cannot be substituted for the "in the course of employment" test. ....Lloyd Gandee, 66,434 (1984) [See RCW 51.08.180(1); RCW 51.08.013]
Deviation
Where recreational activities were pursued during earlier ammonia spills at an employer's workplace, the employees reasonably believed that there was nothing wrong with recreational activities to kill time while awaiting instructions from the employer. A worker who injured his left knee when it buckled after he jumped to block a pass was in the course of his employment at the time of the injury since the injury occurred on company time and all were being paid to wait in the parking lot. For that reason, the Board concluded that the worker did not deviate from his employment when he played football during the work stoppage. ....Ricky Morgan, 94 1042 (1995)
A driver's personal deviation is not imputable to the passenger/worker who is otherwise in the course of his employment. ....Vernon Randall, 47,325 (1977)
A worker's detour from his normal business route for personal reasons removed him from the course of employment so that his fatal accident during the personal side trip was not compensable. ....Larry Clure, Dec'd., 45,077 (1976)
A deputy sheriff, eating a meal in a restaurant while on a business trip to pick up a prisoner, did not remove himself from the course of employment when he left his table momentarily to "remonstrate with a group of rowdies" at a nearby table and was assaulted. ....Thomas Hart, 35,767 (1971)
Dual purpose doctrine
A worker injured commuting to work by her regular route was not brought within the course of employment simply because she intended to deposit mail for her employer enroute. The personal commuting trip would have gone forward and the worker would have followed the same route even in the absence of the business errand. ....Marlene Martin, 85 2862 (1987) [dissent]
When a trip has concurrent business and personal purposes, the worker is in the course of his employment when he is injured during the trip. The business purpose need not be the primary cause of the trip. It is sufficient if someone at some time would have had to make the trip to carry out the business mission. ....Clayton Henneman, 55,132 (1980)
A worker's detour from his normal business route for personal reasons removed him from the course of employment so that his fatal accident during the personal side trip was not compensable. ....Larry Clure,45,077 (1976)
Although a worker's trip to Hawaii was for the dual purposes of attending business seminars and vacationing, she was not in the course of employment when she was injured two days after the seminars had ended and during the vacation portion of the trip. ....Joanne Roberts, 40,893 (1973)
The business purpose of a trip was not established where the worker's real motive was to see his wife rather than to purchase parts for his employer, and the trip would have been made even if the business purpose had failed. ....Robert Mathieson, Dec'd.,07,099 (1958)
Education and training off jobsite
Travel to a first aid class which the employer required the worker to attend is within the course of employment. ....Vernon Randall, Dec'd., 47,325 (1977)
Going and coming rule
Because the school district and the school bus driver entered into an agreement to store a school bus at the worker's residence, the worker's driveway and parking strip are considered part of the employer's jobsite for purposes of the going and coming rule. ....Susan Luteman, 03 17468 (2004)
Although security guard's injury occurred in the employer's parking lot prior to the time he was scheduled to begin work, he was at the time furthering his employer's interests by retrieving messages concerning employees whom he supervised and he was therefore in the course of employment under the "special errand" exception to the going and coming rule. ....Joseph Buchheit, 88 2674 (1989)
A roadway used merely as an access road to and from the worksite by employees is not a part of the jobsite as defined in RCW 51.32.015 and RCW 51.36.040 unless the roadway is used or contracted for by the employer for the business process in which the employer is engaged. Coverage will not be extended under the Industrial Insurance Act to injuries occurring along a route to the worksite where the automobile accident was caused by the negligence of one of the drivers and not because the roadway itself contained some special hazard. Distinguishing ITT Baking Co. 77 Wn.2d 355 (1969) ....Guillermina Estrada, Dec'd., 68,514 (1989) [Editor's note: The Board concluded the roadway was private, based on parties' stipulation and cited Hein v. Longview Fibre Co., 41 Wn. App. 745, 749 (1985) which involved a public roadway.]
A worker assaulted on a public street while traveling to work was not in the course of employment even though the incident may have been in retaliation for his having crossed a striking employees' picket line. ....Lloyd Gandee, 66,434 (1984)
A worker's after hours trip to work to lock the day's receipts in the safe comes within the special errand exception to the going and coming rule since his travel was the most substantial task performed, in terms of inconvenience, time and effort. He was therefore in the course of employment at the time of his fatal accident enroute to the employer's premises. ....Brian Kozeni, Dec'd63,062 (1983)
A worker's trip to work did not become a special errand simply because he was required to open his employer's plant when he arrived, as the trip would have been made in any event. The general rule that workers are not in the course of employment while going to and from work therefore applied to preclude compensation for the worker's fatal accident while commuting to work. ....Joseph McEvoy, Dec'd., 17,774 (1963)
Goodwill
A shopping center security guard, injured while returning from investigating a car accident which had occurred on a public thoroughfare, was in the course of employment because he was furthering his employer's interests by fostering the general public's goodwill toward his employer. ....Larry Attwell, 53,756 (1981) [dissent]
A worker injured while attempting to lift his employer's business associate during a beer break had removed himself from the course of employment. His participation in the beer break was not designed to foster goodwill between his employer and the business associate. ....Thomas Roe, 43,694 (1974)
A salesman/truck driver, killed while helping his employer's customer start a stalled truck, was in the course of employment because he was creating goodwill in furtherance of his employer's business and was not serving any purpose of his own. ....Dallas Wayne Cockle, Dec'd., 23,791 (1967)
Horseplay
A worker injured as a result of friendly horseplay initiated by his supervisor during their lunch period at a lumber mill was entitled to industrial insurance benefits because the activity did not constitute an unreasonable deviation from the course of employment. ....Vince Polmanteer, 88 0362 (1989) [dissent]
A worker injured while attempting to lift his employer's business associate during a beer break was not in the course of employment. ....Thomas Roe, 43,694 (1974)
Intoxication
To decide whether a worker's intoxication evidenced an abandonment of employment the Board will consider evidence of the worker's tolerance for alcohol and demeanor, behavior and speech immediately prior to the accident. In the absence of such testimony, the intoxication, together with eyewitness testimony of erratic driving, is sufficient to establish that the worker had abandoned the course of employment by reason of intoxication. ….Michael Pate, Dec'd., 97 1977 (1999) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Thurston County Cause No. 99-2-090250-9.]
Intoxication evidenced by a blood alcohol content of .16 did not remove the worker from the course of employment where the worker had an above average alcohol tolerance; normal demeanor, behavior and speech; was "fully about his wits"; and had his job duties uppermost in his mind. ....Brian Kozeni, Dec'd., 63,062 (1983)
Intoxication evidenced by a blood alcohol content of .24 did not remove the worker from the course of employment where the worker had an above average tolerance for alcohol, was described as "sober and normal," and was still able to perform his work duties. ....Austin Prentice, 50,892 (1979)
A watchman with a blood alcohol content of .29 was held to have abandoned the course of his employment where medical testimony indicated that such a high level of blood alcohol causes marked impairment in all people and lay testimony indicated that just prior to his death the worker's "walk was not normal, ... he seemed to weave, his actions seemed different, and he did not respond to the usual 'hello'." The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the worker fell into the water and drowned solely because of his state of intoxication. ....Al Thurlow, Dec,d., 20,254 (1967)
Job site
Common entries that provide the only available route to work are premises used, occupied, or contracted for by the employer regardless of the use of the common entry by other businesses. ....Marilyn Webster, 03 18058 (2005)
Lunch period (RCW 51.32.015; RCW 51.36.040)
A worker injured as a result of friendly horseplay initiated by his supervisor during their lunch period at a lumber mill was entitled to industrial insurance benefits because the activity did not constitute an unreasonable deviation from the course of employment. ....Vince Polmanteer, 88 0362 (1989) [dissent]
Coverage during a lunch period on the employer's premises is no greater than during the work period. A worker is not entitled to coverage if the injury results from a wholly independent act of the worker for his own benefit, if the worker's act has no connection with his work or meal, and if the worker's act places him in a more dangerous position than was required of him during the meal period. ....Alfred Morrill, Dec'd.,29,704 (1970) [special concurrence]
An injury sustained during a lunch period on the employer's premises is covered regardless of the worker's activity at the time of injury, even if that activity is solely for the worker's own accommodation or enjoyment. ....Herman Arnott, 24,755 (1965)
"On call" employees
The mere fact that a worker is "on call" is insufficient, standing alone, to bring the worker within the course of employment where there is no showing that the "on call" status involved a substantial intrusion on personal time or that, at the time of injury, the worker was acting in furtherance of the employer's business. ....Joel Holly, Jr., Dec'd.,65,589 (1985)
A ski instructor injured during a "free" skiing period was in the course of employment since the injury occurred during the hours of the ski school's operation, the employer encouraged skiing to familiarize the worker with the course, and the employer required the worker to be "on call" to give ski lessons. ....Laura Bechner, 45,777 (1976)
Parking area exclusion (RCW 51.08.013)
A worker is acting in the furtherance of the employer's business when required to park in an employer-designated parking lot, subject to disciplinary action for non-compliance, and the employer's directive was issued in furtherance of its business interests. A worker injured in a parking lot, under such circumstances, is acting in the course of employment and the parking area exclusion of RCW 51.08.013 does not apply.....Deborah Carey, 03 13166 (2004)
When injured in the parking lot while engaged in an activity to which the personal comfort doctrine applies (smoking), the worker remained in the course of employment and the parking lot exception did not require that the claim be denied. ....Janise Dial, 01 17217 (2003)
When ammonia spilled at the employer's bottling plant, the employer evacuated the workers and they were directed to await further instructions in the front parking lot. The employees pursued various activities--standing, sitting and talking, hitting tennis balls, reading or listening to music, eating lunches, and some played touch football. A worker who injured his left knee when it buckled after he jumped to block a pass was in the course of his employment at the time of the injury since the injury occurred on company time and all were being paid to wait in the parking lot. ....Ricky Morgan, 94 1042 (1995)
A teacher slipped on ice as she carried class materials to the classroom. The materials were in her car trunk rather than in storage at a school less than a mile away to ensure that they would be accessible since they were essential to her job. The parking lot exception did not apply and that the worker was acting in the furtherance of the employer's business by transporting critical tools of the trade. .....Julie Trusley, 93 3124 (1994) (dissent)
Although security guard's injury occurred in the employer's parking lot, he was at the time furthering his employer's interests by retrieving messages concerning employees whom he supervised and he was therefore in the course of employment under the "special errand" exception to the going and coming rule. ....Joseph Buchheit, 88 2674 (1989)
A worker injured while coming from a parking area was injured on the "jobsite" since the area in which the injury occurred was owned, operated and controlled by the employer, was the only practical route to the employer's plant, was used for purposes in addition to employee parking, and presented particular hazards likely to produce injury. ....Cathy Dickey, 64,560 (1984) [dissent] [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under Benton County Cause No. 84-2-00625-8.]
A worker sustaining an injury in a parking area enclosed by a fence is not subject to the exclusion of RCW 51.08.013 where the injury occurred at a location within the enclosed area which was used exclusively for storage and not for parking. ....Michael Burnett, 49,588 (1978)
A road which provides access to a parking lot and which is also used for the delivery of materials to the employer's plant is not a "parking area". The exclusion of RCW 51.08.013 is therefore inapplicable to an injury sustained by a worker walking on that portion of the employer's jobsite. ....Harold Redman, 43,902 (1975) [dissent]
Personal comfort doctrine
When injured in the parking lot while engaged in an activity to which the personal comfort doctrine applies (smoking), the worker remained in the course of employment and the parking lot exception did not require that the claim be denied. ....Janise Dial, 01 17217 (2003)
An attorney, who broke loose a dental crown when he bit into a piece of candy taken from a dish located on the reception desk of his employer, was injured in the course of employment. Injury-producing activity, though personal in nature, is still compensable under the "personal comfort doctrine" where it is reasonably incidental to the duties of the job. Overruling In re Carol Rivkin, BIIA Dec., 85 1694 (1986) ....Philip Carstens, Jr., 89 0723 (1990) [special concurrence]
A truck driver who remained on the employer's premises after hours to install a CB radio antenna for his personal use was not in the course of employment when he sustained an injury. The personal comfort doctrine was held inapplicable. ....Arie "Art" Vanderhoogt, 48,219 (1977)
Reaction to treatment for probable occupational disease
Home health care worker's negative reaction to medical treatment, undertaken when her patient was misdiagnosed as having tuberculosis, constitutes an occupational disease. Risk of exposure was a distinctive condition of employment and treatment precautions undertaken by worker were in furtherance of the employer's interests and therefore occurred in the course of employment. ....Eleanor Groce, 87 3645 (1989)
Recreational activities
A worker injured while playing on an employee softball team was not in the course of his employment, particularly where the employer provided no financial support to the team, exerted no control over the players who were not paid for their time and when the game did not occur on company premises during a lunch or recreation break. ....Christopher Phillips, 90 1386 (1991)
Worker who injured his knee while playing on company football team was not injured in the course of employment where the employer paid for only the team's league entry fee, games were played off work hours and off work premises, the company name did not appear on jerseys, and no business was solicited through the team's participation in the league. ....Berry Rambeau, 89 1604 (1990) [dissent] [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under King County Cause No. 90-2-25386-4.]
Resident workers
An apartment manager who is on call 24 hours per day and has no fixed work hours is in the course of employment during the entire period of her presence on the premises. ....Christine Maier, 18,224 (1963)
Sidewalk
A worker is not covered if injured on a sidewalk on the employer's premises unless the worker is in the course of employment at the time of the injury. A public sidewalk, even if owned by the employer, is not part of the jobsite unless it meets the definition of jobsite contained in RCW 51.32.015 and 51.36.040. ....Eileen Cleary, 92 1119 (1993)
Training programs
Where a participant in an employer-sponsored training program appears to be acting under an implied contract of employment, which includes provisions for termination for absences or limitation from access to future employment with the employer, the participant is within the course of employment if she sustains an injury during the program. ....Kimberly Bemis, 90 5522 (1992) [Editor's Note: The Board's decision was appealed to superior court under King County Cause No. 92-2-12714-8.]