White v. State Industrial Accident Commission
389 P.2d 310, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 295, 236 Or. 444 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee during a personal trip, such as commuting to and from lunch, generally does not arise out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes, even if the employee has a general supervisory duty, unless a business activity is actively being performed at the time of the injury or the trip itself has an independent business purpose.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was a teacher at Reedsport Union High School in Reedsport, Oregon.
- The school was located on the south side of Highway 101, and Plaintiff lived about a block and a half to the north, requiring him to cross the busy, four-lane highway to go to and from his home.
- Plaintiff customarily went home for lunch during his workday.
- A State Board of Education rule stipulated that teachers 'shall exercise watchful care and oversight over the conduct and habits of the pupils, not only during school hours, but also at recesses and noon intermission, and shall have power to punish a pupil for misconduct on the way to and from school.'
- Plaintiff testified that it was his duty to report or take action regarding any misconduct by pupils he observed off school grounds.
- The school principal confirmed that all teachers were responsible for pupil supervision both on and off school grounds during the entire school day.
- Plaintiff was struck by an automobile and injured while crossing Highway 101 on his way back to the school from his home, where he had gone for lunch.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a teacher, filed a claim for workers' compensation with the State Industrial Accident Commission (defendant).
- The State Industrial Accident Commission rejected Plaintiff's claim.
- Plaintiff appealed the commission's rejection to the circuit court.
- The circuit court conducted a jury trial, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- The State Industrial Accident Commission (defendant and appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing the court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict.
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 a teacher's injury sustained while returning to school from a personal lunch break, with a general supervisory duty over students off school grounds, arise out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes when no students were present and no business activity was actively being performed at the time of injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Lusk, J.
No, the plaintiff's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The court affirmed the general 'going and coming rule,' which states that injuries sustained by employees while traveling to or from their regular place of work, including during lunch-time trips, are not considered compensable. The court distinguished this case from others where compensation was allowed because in those instances, the teachers were actively engaged in observing students at the time of injury, or the employee's trip had an independent business purpose that would have been undertaken regardless of the personal objective. In this case, while the plaintiff had a general duty to observe students, no students were present for him to observe or discipline at the time of the accident. Therefore, his trip home for lunch never lost its 'purely personal purpose and character,' and he was not actively rendering service to his employer. The court emphasized that the mere proximity of the accident to the school premises did not alter the personal nature of the trip, nor was the plaintiff required to take any specific route or go home for lunch at all.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of the 'going and coming rule' in workers' compensation, particularly for public employees with broad, general supervisory duties. It clarifies that a potential or passive duty is insufficient to make a personal commute or lunch break compensable; instead, the employee must be actively performing a business activity or the trip must serve a distinct, independent business purpose. This ruling limits the scope of 'in the course of employment' and prevents a broad expansion of liability for injuries sustained during personal activities, even if those activities are incidental to employment.
