In the recently decided Worker’s Compensation case of Davis v. Labor Commission, Air Systems, 2018 UT App 71, the Utah Court of Appeals decided the wrongful death case of a worker who was killed during his commute to work
.
Mr. Davis used a company owned pickup truck for his commute to and from work. The company paid for the fuel and maintenance of the vehicle. On occasion, he used the truck to pick up construction materials for his employer, or to transport other employees to and from work.

On the date of the accident, Davis had not stopped to run any errands for his employer. He commuted from his home in Salt Lake City to the worksite in Park City.

He decided to take Guardsman’s pass on the way to the worksite, a narrow and steep mountain pass, rather than the more conventional and quicker route up Parley’s Canyon.

His vehicle went off the road at a sharp curve and rolled down the mountainside, ejecting him from the vehicle and killing him.

The question was whether he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. The Labor Commission held that he was not, because of the “coming and going” rule, which holds that a commute to and from work is not typically within the course and scope of employment.

Davis challenged the ruling, arguing that the “instrumentality” exception to the going and coming rule applied. This exception applies where the employer exercises a significant degree of control over the employee’s use of the company-owned vehicle or receives a substantial benefit from the employee’s use of the vehicle.

The Court noted another exception to the coming and going rule — namely, the “special errand” exception, where an employee goes on an errand for his or her employer during the commute.

The Court upheld the Labor Commission’s ruling that no exception to the coming and going rule applied in the instant case. There simply was not a strong enough showing that the employer exercised a degree of control or received a benefit from the employee’s use of the vehicle to take the case out of the general rule that an accident during a commute does not occur in the course and scope of one’s employment.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.