While traveling on business at the employer’s request and stopping for lunch at a restaurant, the employee is injured. The claim would be:

While traveling on business at the employer’s request and stopping for lunch at a restaurant, the employee is injured. The claim would be:

• A. Not compensable because of the coming and going rule.
• B. Not compensable because the employee was on a lunch break.
• C. Compensable due to the bunkhouse rule.
• D. Compensable due to the commercial traveler rule.

Answer: (D)

In California, there’s an exception to the usual coming-and-going rule for employees who travel away from the employer’s premises on business. This is the commercial traveler rule: injuries that happen during travel for work, including necessary stops for meals, can be compensable because the travel itself is part of the employer’s business. Here, the worker is traveling on the employer’s request and stops for lunch during that trip. The injury occurs while the travel is still in the line of employment and during a meal stop that is part of continuing the business trip. That makes the injury compensable under the commercial traveler rule. The bunkhouse rule isn’t applicable here because there’s no mention of employer-provided lodging affecting travel. The scenario fits travel for business, not a lodging-related exception, so the commercial traveler rule is the correct rationale.

In California, there’s an exception to the usual coming-and-going rule for employees who travel away from the employer’s premises on business. This is the commercial traveler rule: injuries that happen during travel for work, including necessary stops for meals, can be compensable because the travel itself is part of the employer’s business.

Here, the worker is traveling on the employer’s request and stops for lunch during that trip. The injury occurs while the travel is still in the line of employment and during a meal stop that is part of continuing the business trip. That makes the injury compensable under the commercial traveler rule.

The bunkhouse rule isn’t applicable here because there’s no mention of employer-provided lodging affecting travel. The scenario fits travel for business, not a lodging-related exception, so the commercial traveler rule is the correct rationale.