An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 8 – Leaves And Absences

 The activity is within the reasonable contemplation of the employee’s assignment; and  A benefit is derived by the school. Thus, in one case, an employee of a gas station returned to the work site after his normal working hours and acceded to another employee’s request that he help fix the gas pump. Injuries resulting from an explosion that occurred while repairing the pump were held to be compensable. 1419 c. Unlimited Territory Or Hours Of Work If an employee’s duties are not to be performed on a particular job site or at specified work hours, the employee may be considered to be within the scope of employment even when not actually performing work. Examples would include: salesmen 1420 (in course of employment during entire time of trip), working foreman 1421 (in the course of employment when killed while going home to inform wife that he would be working all night), firefighters 1422 (volunteer firefighter killed en route to a scheduled drill), and police officers. d. Work Outside Regular Duties Where an employee is injured on the school’s premises during regular working hours and while the employee is engaged in activities at the request of the school, even if those activities are not a normal part of the job, any injury sustained would be compensable. For example, a secretary who was employed by a marine amusement park was asked to ride a killer whale for some publicity photos. She agreed and was bitten, sustaining serious injuries. The injuries were held to be compensable. 1423 e. Unauthorized And Forbidden Activities If an employee violates instructions regarding the time, place or manner of performing the job, an injury incurred may not be compensable. If an employee is injured during a material deviation from assigned duties, he is not entitled to compensation benefits. The key issue is what constitutes a “material deviation.” The deviation must be so grave as to constitute an abandonment of the employment relationship. Mere technical violations of rules will not give rise to application of this exception. Even a serious violation does not always remove an employee from coverage. The distinction is between doing something that is entirely beyond the scope of the job responsibilities and doing an act within the scope of job duties in a forbidden manner. Doubts are often resolved in favor of the employee. The following cases illustrate applications of this rule:  An employee had the duty of bringing machine parts from the storeroom by hand in the event a regular driver was unavailable. He was expressly forbidden from driving. Instead of bringing the parts by hand, he drove and was injured while so doing. The injury was compensable, though reduced for misconduct. 1424  An employee was accused of committing forgery and embezzlement by his employer. In the course of the investigation by his employer, he developed

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 323