Utah Court of Appeals
When does the instrumentality exception apply to workers' compensation commuting accidents? Davis v. Labor Commission Explained
Summary
A construction worker died in a truck accident while commuting to work in a company-owned vehicle. His widow sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing the instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule applied. The Labor Commission denied the claim, finding the employer’s control over and benefit from the vehicle insufficient to establish the truck as an instrumentality of the business.
Analysis
In Davis v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when the instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule applies in workers’ compensation cases involving commuting accidents.
Background and Facts
A construction worker employed by Air Systems died when the company truck he was driving rolled off Guardsman Pass while commuting to a Park City jobsite. Air Systems owned the truck, paid for fuel and maintenance, and allowed the worker to drive it between home and worksites. However, the company imposed minimal restrictions on the vehicle’s use—the worker could choose his route, invite passengers, and determine his commute schedule. His widow filed for workers’ compensation benefits, but both an ALJ and the Labor Commission denied the claim.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule applied. This exception requires analyzing two factors on a sliding scale: (1) the degree of employer control over the vehicle, and (2) the benefit the employer derives from the employee’s use of the vehicle. If one factor is weak, the other must be particularly strong.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied a deferential standard of review because determinations about the going and coming rule are fact-intensive and the Commission has superior exposure to the evidence. Regarding control, while Air Systems owned the truck, it exercised minimal actual restrictions—no requirements about routes, passengers, or timing. The court found this showed only “moderate” control. As for benefits, Air Systems gained only incidental advantages like reliable employee arrival and occasional material transport. The court emphasized that “mere incidental benefit is not sufficient” to invoke the exception.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that company vehicle ownership alone is insufficient for the instrumentality exception. Practitioners must demonstrate substantial employer control through specific restrictions and significant business benefits beyond employee convenience. The court’s comparison to VanLeeuwen and distinction from Salt Lake City Corp. provides guidance on the level of control and benefit required. The deferential standard of review makes trial-level factual development crucial for these claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Davis v. Labor Commission
Citation
2018 UT App 71
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20161081-CA
Date Decided
April 26, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The instrumentality exception to the going and coming rule does not apply when an employer exercises only moderate control over a vehicle and derives only minimal or incidental benefits from the employee’s use of it.
Standard of Review
Deferential standard for mixed questions of law and fact where the fact-finder is in a superior position to decide the question, particularly in fact-intensive determinations of whether to apply the going and coming rule
Practice Tip
When arguing the instrumentality exception, practitioners must demonstrate substantial employer control and significant business benefits, not merely incidental advantages like reliable employee arrival at work.
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.