Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois
240 S.W.3d 220, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 1033 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an injury sustained by a telecommuting employee from a third-party assault to be compensable under workers' compensation, the injury must not only occur in the course of employment but must also arise out of it. A neutral assault does not arise out of employment unless the conditions of employment, such as required public exposure, created the risk of assault, or the assailant targeted the employee because of their association with the employer.
Facts:
- Kristina Wait worked for the American Cancer Society (ACS) from an employer-approved office set up in a spare bedroom of her home.
- ACS provided Wait with office equipment, a dedicated business phone line, and a budget for supplies.
- Wait's job did not require her to open her home to the public, and for safety, she normally kept her outside doors locked and an alarm system activated during working hours.
- Wait had met a neighbor, Nathaniel Sawyers, at a neighborhood cookout and he had visited her home for brief social calls on two prior occasions.
- On September 3, 2004, while working, Wait was in her kitchen preparing lunch around noon when Sawyers knocked on her door.
- Wait invited Sawyers in for a short time; he then left but immediately returned, claiming to have left his keys inside.
- When Wait let Sawyers back into her home, he followed her inside and brutally assaulted her without provocation or explanation, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristina Wait filed a complaint for workers' compensation benefits in the chancery court against Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, the insurer for her employer.
- Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the injuries were not compensable.
- The chancery court granted summary judgment for Travelers, holding that Wait’s injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of her employment.
- Wait, as the appellant, appealed the chancery court's decision.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court accepted review of the case directly, before it was considered by the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury from a neutral assault by a third party in an employee's home office arise out of the employment when the assault is not connected to the employer and the employment does not require exposure to the public?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice William M. Barker
No, an injury from a neutral assault by a third party in an employee's home office does not arise out of the employment when the assault is unconnected to the employer's business and the job does not create the risk by requiring public exposure. While the injury occurred 'in the course of' employment because Wait was on a permissible lunch break at her sanctioned worksite, it did not 'arise out of' her employment. The court classifies assaults as (1) having an inherent connection to employment (compensable), (2) stemming from inherently private disputes (not compensable), or (3) resulting from a 'neutral force' (compensability depends on the circumstances). This assault was a 'neutral force' as it was not motivated by Wait's job duties or a personal dispute. For a neutral assault to be compensable under the 'street risk' doctrine, the employment must expose the employee to public hazards or the employee must be targeted due to their association with the employer. Here, Wait’s employment did not require her to open her home to the public or expose her to such risks. The assault was purely coincidental to her employment, and the argument that she would not have been home 'but for' her job is insufficient to establish the necessary causal connection.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundaries of workers' compensation liability for the growing telecommuting workforce. It establishes that the mere location of work within a home does not automatically make any resulting injury work-related under the 'arising out of' prong. By declining to extend the 'street risk' doctrine to this scenario, the court prevents the expansion of employer liability for risks that are not created by the nature of the employment itself. This ruling forces a distinction between the general risks of being at home and the specific risks created by an employer's business, requiring future claimants to demonstrate a direct causal link between their job duties and a third-party assault.
