Guest v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1970 |
| Parties | , 470 P.2d 1 William A. GUEST, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, City of Pomona, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Respondents. L.A. 29735. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Graham W. Talbott, Pomona, for petitioner.
Rupert A. Pedrin, San Francisco, Nathan Mudge, Sheldon M. Ziff, Los Angeles, and A. C. Jones, Jr., San Francisco, for respondents.
Petitioner seeks annulment of a decision after reconsideration by the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, which held that by reason of the going and coming rule petitioner's injury was not compensable.
Facts: Petitioner is a policeman employed by the Pomona Police Department. He usually dresses on the job and has a locker at the police station for that purpose. He has two uniforms, one of which he keeps in his locker at work and the other at home.
Petitioner was assigned to perform official duties at the 1968 Los Angeles County Fair. He was instructed to go directly to the fairgrounds each day and not report to the police station first. On September 13, 1968, the opening day for the fair, petitioner, not knowing of any facilities for changing into his uniform at the fairgrounds, put on his full uniform at home and started to drive to the fairgrounds in a car he had borrowed from his brother. While on a direct route between his home and the fairgrounds, he was injured in an automobile accident.
Following an award of benefits to petitioner, the city and the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration, which was granted, respondent appeals board holding that petitioner's claim was barred by the going and coming rule.
Question: Is petitioner's claim barred by the going and coming rule?
No. Although ordinarily an injury which occurs while an employee is driving to or from work is not compensable by reason of the going and coming rule, the rule is subject to many exceptions. (Garzoli v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., 2 Cal.3d 502, 505, 86 Cal.Rptr. 1, 467 P.2d 833.) Petitioner contends that he comes within the 'special mission' exception to the rule. The relevant question in this regard is whether petitioner's assignment to serve at the fair was 'special' or 'extraordinary in relation to routine duties' (Schreifer v. Industrial Acc. Com., 61 Cal.2d 289, 295, 38 Cal.Rptr. 352, 355, 391 P.2d 832, 835) or whether it was a routine, though temporary, assignment.
Petitioner urges that the assignment was a special one, in that he was specifically instructed to go directly to the fairgrounds during the 17 days of the fair's duration, rather than to report first to the police station and there take police equipment for transportation to his assigned position, as is the case when he is on regular assignment. He points out that '(t)his was a direct benefit to the employer in that the working day as far as assignable hours were concerned started when he got to the Fairgrounds, not many miles away at the Police Department.'
Respondent appeals board, on the other hand, points out that the assignment was for the 17 days the fair ran in Pomona, that petitioner was to report there each day during the course of the fair, and that the City of Pomona is host to the fair every fall in mid-September. Thus, respondent appeals board argues, the assignment was a routine one even if it was a temporary one of 17 days' duration, and was not extraordinary since the city sends police officers for service to the fair in the fall of each year.
As stated by this court in Garzoli: 'In determining whether the facts bring a case within the general rule or cause it to fall within an exception thereto, the mandate of section 3202 of the Labor Code must be kept in mind. That section requires that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act be 'liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending the benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment.'' (2 Cal.3d at p. 505, 86 Cal.Rptr. at 3, 467 P.2d at 835.)
As pointed out in Schreifer, there has been widespread criticism of the arbitrary, judge-made coming and going rule. In the instant case, although admittedly a close question is presented, it is reasonable to regard pet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hornyak v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.
...v. Industrial Accident Commission, 61 Cal.2d 289, 38 Cal.Rptr. 352, 391 P.2d 832 (1964); Guest v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 2 Cal.3d 670, 87 Cal.Rptr. 193, 470 P.2d 1 (1970). See also Horowitz, 'Worldwide Workmen's Compensation Trends,' 59 Ky.L.J. 37 (1970), where the author sug......
-
Baroid v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...and from work (Garzoli v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra, 2 Cal.3d 502, 86 Cal.Rptr. 1, 467 P.2d 833; Guest v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 670, 87 Cal.Rptr. 193, 470 P.2d 1; but cf. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (McGrew), supra, 29 Cal.App.3d 902, 106 Ca......
-
City of Sherwood v. Lowe, CA81-300
...Ins. Fund v. Workmen's Compensation App. Bd., 29 Cal.App.3d 902, 106 Cal.Rptr. 39 (1973); Guest v. Workmen's Compensation App. Bd., 2 Cal.3d 670, 470 P.2d 1, 87 Cal.Rptr. 193 (1970); Garzoli v. Workmen's Compensation App. Bd., 2 Cal.3d 502, 467 P.2d 833, 86 Cal.Rptr. 1 (1970).6 Rogers v. In......
-
Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., Inc. v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd.
...P.2d 1176; Dimmig v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 6 Cal.3d 860, 101 Cal.Rptr. 105, 495 P.2d 433; Guest v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 670, 87 Cal.Rptr. 193, 470 P.2d 1; Schreifer v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 289, 38 Cal.Rptr. 352, 391 P.2d As explained in 2 Ha......