In Rose Jones v. Regents of the University of California (10/31/23) 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 281, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth district of California, recently ordered the publication of its decision holding that a state university employee could not pursue a civil tort suit against her employer for injuries she sustained after falling off her bicycle as she was headed home from work.
This appellate decision affirms the trial court’s ruling that the employee’s injuries were subject to the “premises line” rule, which extends the course of employment until the employee leaves the employer’s premises.
Employee, Rose Jones, worked for the University of California, Irvine (UCI). After finishing her workday, Jones exited her office and began riding her bicycle home. Within ten seconds of riding her bike, Jones swerved to avoid a trench, marked by caution tape and orange posts, and fell off her bike sustaining injuries.
Jones sued the Regents, alleging civil claims for premises liability and negligence. Her husband filed a claim for loss of consortium.
The Regents moved for summary judgment, claiming that Jones’ injuries occurred within the course of her employment and that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule barred her claim. (Lab. Code sec. 3600, subd. (a), 3602.) (LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 279.
Jones argued against the application of the premises line rule because its applicability is “not an easy question” and “depended on many factors.” For example, she was leaving, not arriving, using her own mode of transportation, and was riding in an area designated for public use.
A trial court judge granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The court stated the judicially created going and coming rule provided that an employee’s injury while commuting to and from work is not compensable under the workers’ compensation system absent “special or extraordinary circumstances.” However, the court continued, the rule had been attacked in recent years as too difficult to apply.
In response to the difficulty of application, California courts adopted the premises line rule, which provided that the employment relationship begins once the employee enters the employer’s premises. This rule was created to make “a sharp line of demarcation as to when the employee’s commute terminates, and the course of employment commences.”
Jones’ accident occurred on UCI’s campus, which is undisputedly owned by the Regents, just after leaving her workstation.
The court concluded “because the premises line rule brought Jones’ injuries within the workers’ compensation scheme, the exclusivity rule barred her [civil] claim.” Here, by applying the premises rule, the court established the “sharp line of demarcation” for Jones.
This case as a published decision clearly now tightens the line of demarcation for all of us. If an employee suffers an injury in or on the employer’s premises, the premises line rule will most likely apply defeating a defense of the “going and coming” rule.
Mesha O. Phillips, Esq., Associate Attorney, Oakland Office December 2023.
