Takeaway: A university employee who was injured while riding her bike on campus on her way home from work was limited to worker’s compensation remedies under the under the “premises line” rule, which extends the course of employment until the employee leaves the employer’s premises.
An employee of the University of California who was injured while riding her bike on university grounds on her way home from work was limited to workers’ compensation under the “exclusivity” rule, a California appeals court recently ruled.
Although an employee’s commute is generally outside the workers’ compensation scheme, the employee’s injuries were subject to the scheme under the “premises line” rule, which extends the course of employment until the employee leaves the employer’s premises, the court said.
The employee worked for the university as the director of scholarship opportunities at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) campus. At the end of her workday on the day of the incident, she exited her office suite at UCI’s science library, walked her bike a short distance to the bike path, mounted her bike, and began riding toward her home. After riding for about 10 seconds, the employee reached a trench, cordoned off with orange posts and caution tape. Upon noticing the obstacle, she swerved and attempted to brake, but fell off her bike and sustained injuries.
After the accident, the employee sued the university for negligence. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit before trial, ruling that the employee’s injuries occurred within the course of her employment and that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule therefore barred the action. It noted that the employee was still on the university’s premises and that her injuries were therefore subject to the workers’ compensation scheme under the premises line rule.
The employee appealed.
Premises Line Rule
Under the California Labor Code, where an employee is injured in the course and scope of their employment, workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy of the employee against the employer, the court first noted.
However, the court added, under the judicially created “going and coming rule,” an employee’s injury while commuting to and from work is not compensable under the workers’ compensation system absent special or extraordinary circumstances.
In order to create a sharp line of demarcation as to when the employee’s commute terminates and the course of employment begins, courts have adopted the premises line rule, which provides that the employment relationship generally commences once the employee enters the employer’s premises, the appeals court explained.
The same rule applies to determine the end of the course of employment: Generally, once employment has begun, it continues, and injury is presumed to be compensable until the employee leaves the employer’s premises, the court said.
The appeals court concluded that the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule barred the employee’s claim because her injuries occurred in the course and scope of her employment. Her accident occurred on UCI’s campus, just after she left her workstation. Under these circumstances, the court said, the premises line rule brought the employee’s injuries within the worker’s compensation scheme.
The court rejected the employee’s claim that there remained triable issues as to whether the premises line rule applied to her injuries based on the following factors:
- She was leaving work, rather than arriving.
- Her route was not reserved for employees but also used by students and the general public.
- UCI’s campus was large.
These circumstances raised no question about the applicability of the premises line rule, the court said, noting that the employee cited no court cases suggesting that any of the factors she proffered, or any combination of the factors, defeated the rule. Instead, the court said, California Supreme Court precedent demonstrated that none of those factors precluded application of the premises line rule.
For example, in one case, the high court held that an employee who worked for a fair located on an island and who was injured while traveling to a ferry terminal on his way home from work was limited to workers’ compensation remedies.
The entire island, comprising several hundred acres, was under the employer’s control, the court noted. Further, employees, concessioners and fairgoers all used the island’s roads, the exclusive routes of travel on the island.
As in this case, the employee was leaving work, rather than arriving. The employee used roads also used by nonemployees, and the employer’s premises were expansive. Thus, just as the circumstances the employee referenced in that case did not supersede the premises line rule, the same circumstances did not do so here, the court said.
The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit before trial.
Jones v. Regents of the University of California, Calif. Ct. App., No. G061787 (Oct. 31, 2023).
Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer based in Annapolis, Md.
