Utah Supreme Court
Does the going and coming rule bar workers' compensation benefits for take-home vehicle accidents? Salt Lake City Corp. v. Ross Explained
Summary
Salt Lake City police officer Michelle Ross was injured while driving home in a take-home patrol car after attending an FTO meeting. The Utah Labor Commission awarded workers’ compensation benefits despite the going and coming rule. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Salt Lake City received sufficient incidental benefits from the take-home car program to render the accident work-related for workers’ compensation purposes.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Salt Lake City police officer Michelle Ross was injured in an automobile accident while driving home in her assigned patrol car after attending an off-duty Field Training Officer meeting. Ross participated in the department’s Take Home Car Program, which required officers to maintain equipment readiness, monitor police radio, and respond to emergency calls even while off duty. The city collected fees from officers like Ross who lived outside Salt Lake County. After the accident, Ross sought workers’ compensation benefits, which the Utah Labor Commission awarded despite Salt Lake City’s argument that the going and coming rule barred coverage.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the going and coming rule prevented Ross from receiving workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained while commuting home in her patrol car. The court also addressed whether the same factual scenario could yield different results for workers’ compensation eligibility versus vicarious liability purposes, as the court had previously ruled in Ahlstrom v. Salt Lake City Corp. that the city was not liable to third parties injured in the same accident.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied a correction-of-error standard for legal determinations but emphasized that workers’ compensation cases require liberal construction favoring injured employees. The court distinguished between the standards applicable to vicarious liability and workers’ compensation, noting that different presumptions govern each area. The court focused on whether Salt Lake City derived incidental benefits from Ross’s participation in the take-home car program. The court found that the city received sufficient benefits—including officer readiness, vehicle care, and police visibility—to satisfy the “arising out of and in the course of employment” requirement, even though the same benefits were insufficient for vicarious liability purposes in the earlier Ahlstrom case.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates that the going and coming rule operates differently in workers’ compensation versus tort liability contexts. Practitioners should recognize that incidental employer benefits can establish workers’ compensation coverage even when they cannot support vicarious liability. The court’s emphasis on liberal construction in favor of injured workers reinforces that employers face an uphill battle when challenging compensation awards based on commuting accidents involving employer-provided vehicles or equipment.
Case Details
Case Name
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Ross
Citation
2007 UT 4
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20050774
Date Decided
January 12, 2007
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The going and coming rule does not bar workers’ compensation benefits when an employee’s activities confer incidental benefits on the employer, even if those same activities are insufficient to establish vicarious liability.
Standard of Review
Correction-of-error standard for legal determinations; clearly erroneous for findings of fact; conditionally deferential standard for mixed questions of law and fact with liberal construction favoring injured employees
Practice Tip
When challenging workers’ compensation awards under the going and coming rule, focus on demonstrating that the employer derived no incidental benefits from the employee’s travel, as even minimal employer benefits can support coverage.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.