An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 8 – Leaves And Absences

B. C OURSE O F E MPLOYMENT The Act provides that an injury, to be compensable, must arise when the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment. 1412 Generally, this condition is met when the employee is on the premises where he works and performing acts within the scope of his duties, in conformity with directions of the school. The “in the course of” requirement refers to the necessity for a sufficiently close relationship between one’s employment and one’s injury. This inquiry focuses on considerations of time, place, and circumstances, as they relate to one’s employment. The issue is one of causal connection between one’s employment and injury. Under this general test, the employee will ordinarily be held to be outside the course of employment:  When he or she is not on the school’s premises;  Where the activity is personal and not related to his employment;  Where his acts are outside the scope of the job duties; and  Where the school’s instructions have been violated. 1. G OING A ND C OMING R ULE Injuries occurring while employees are traveling to and from work are generally not compensable. The employee is not considered to be in the “course of employment.” However, the courts have rejected a rigid application of the going and coming rule and have established a number of exceptions to the rule. The following cases illustrate some of these exceptions to the going and coming rule:

 A liberal application occurred in Shell Oil Co. v. IAL , 1413 where a manager had attended a special dinner meeting after which he developed car trouble. He left the car at a gas station and returned to pick it up two days later. On the return trip, he was involved in an accident and died. The Court found the return trip to be a natural, normal and necessary part of the special assignment of attending the dinner.  In Schreifer v. IAC , 1414 an off-duty deputy sheriff was called at home and told to report for duty as soon as possible. On his way in to work, he was injured. Benefits were awarded to the employee. The Court held that while this was not a special assignment, it was the usual assignment at a “special time,” and was thus extraordinary in relation to his routine duties  In Safeway Store v. WCAB , 1415 the Court held that there was no difference between going to work early and returning late. In that case, the Court granted benefits to an employee who was attacked by an unknown assailant as he returned home following an overtime assignment.  An injury en route to a union meeting to vote on ratification of a collective bargaining agreement was held to be covered as a “special mission.” 1416

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 321