A high school teacher parked on school property, is assaulted offsite two blocks away, and the claim is evaluated under special risk. Which conclusion is most consistent with the special risk concept?

A high school teacher parked on school property, is assaulted offsite two blocks away, and the claim is evaluated under special risk. Which conclusion is most consistent with the special risk concept?

• A. The injury is not compensable because of the coming and going rule.
• B. The injury is not compensable because it did not occur in the school district's lot on their property.
• C. The injury is not compensable because it does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to Labor Code 3600.
• D. The injury is compensable because the employment subjected the employee to a special risk.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that some injuries are compensable even when they happen during a commute, if they arise from a special risk connected to the job. In California workers’ compensation, the “going and coming” rule has exceptions, and one of the main ones is the special risk (special hazard) concept: if the employment exposes the worker to a risk that is unique to the job, injuries tied to that risk can be compensable even if the injury occurs away from the worksite. Here, a teacher is in a school-related setting, where the job inherently involves exposure to certain hazards, such as potential violence or assault linked to the school environment. Even though the assault happened off campus, two blocks away, the risk is still tied to the employment. The injury reflects that special risk created by being a school employee, so it is compensable. The other options fall short because the special risk exception exists precisely to address injuries connected to the job that occur offsite or outside the workplace; thus the injury isn’t barred by the coming-and-going rule. Also, the fact that the injury didn’t occur on school property doesn’t negate the work-related hazard, and there are recognized exceptions to Labor Code 3600—this scenario aligns with one of those exceptions.

The key idea is that some injuries are compensable even when they happen during a commute, if they arise from a special risk connected to the job. In California workers’ compensation, the “going and coming” rule has exceptions, and one of the main ones is the special risk (special hazard) concept: if the employment exposes the worker to a risk that is unique to the job, injuries tied to that risk can be compensable even if the injury occurs away from the worksite.

Here, a teacher is in a school-related setting, where the job inherently involves exposure to certain hazards, such as potential violence or assault linked to the school environment. Even though the assault happened off campus, two blocks away, the risk is still tied to the employment. The injury reflects that special risk created by being a school employee, so it is compensable.

The other options fall short because the special risk exception exists precisely to address injuries connected to the job that occur offsite or outside the workplace; thus the injury isn’t barred by the coming-and-going rule. Also, the fact that the injury didn’t occur on school property doesn’t negate the work-related hazard, and there are recognized exceptions to Labor Code 3600—this scenario aligns with one of those exceptions.