Opinion ID: 2570822
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attacks which arise from an employee's performance of employment obligations

Text: Temple argues that his performance of a workplace obligation, approaching and assisting customers, was a causal factor in the assault. He testified that company policy and common sense required that he assist customers in the employees-only staging area, and he believed Callahan was a customer.
A small number of cases have held injuries compensable where the obligations of the victim's employment created a unique opportunity for the assailant to attack. In Culpepper v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley , the claimant worked as a cocktail waitress in an isolated mountain resort. [26] The employer expected employees to help customers anywhere in the resort. Therefore, the claimant stopped on the road to assist a stranded motorist whom she recognized as a customer. He kidnapped and sexually assaulted her, and she sustained serious injuries in escaping from his moving car. The court found the injuries causally connected to her employment because the job placed her at increased risk of sexual assault and because she acted in the interests of her employer when she stopped on the roadside. [27] The California Supreme Court in California Compensation & Fire Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board also awarded compensation to an employee whose work requirements put her at special risk. [28] The claimant's employment required that she visit customers' homes to measure tables for customized pads. Her ex-husband rented an apartment and placed an order with her employer under an assumed name. When she came to the apartment, he shot and killed her. [29] The court found that the employee's work obligations contributed to her death because of the role her work duties played in her assailant's scheme. [30] These cases are analogous to Temple's in that the attacker had personal motivation and the employees' work obligations created the opportunity for assault. However, in both cases the employees' work-related actions were clear causal factors that allowed the assaults to occur. The same is not true in this case. Callahan had already found his victim when Temple approached him. Callahan did not attack Temple at work because Temple was performing his workplace obligations, but rather because the restaurant provide[d] a place where the assailant [could] find the victim. [31] Under these circumstances, as the Board correctly concluded, compensation is not appropriate.
In rare cases, courts have awarded compensation where employees' performance of work duties motivated assailants to attack them. In Ross v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, a liquor store clerk was awarded compensation after a customer's jealous husband shot him. [32] The husband's suspicions were aroused because the clerk had been seen sitting in his wife's car outside the store. Because the clerk's job involved helping customers carry purchases to their cars and acting friendly toward them, the Ross court found that claimant's work activity and ambient circumstances of his employment were a causal factor in the assault. [33] We discussed Ross in our Marsh decision, and distinguished it because Ross did not act in a personal capacity in being friendly with his assailant's wife. [34] In another case, Murphy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, a husband shot his wife at her workplace because of a dispute over the job itself. [35] The court found that this assault was work related because the underlying dispute between the victim and her husband directly concerned her work. [36] Kevin Temple's situation is not analogous to either of these cases; Temple's performance of work duties did not anger Callahan or motivate the assault. At most, Temple's accessibility at work provided Callahan with the inspiration and the opportunity to attack. This attenuated connection does not support a finding that Princess facilitated the assault or that workers' compensation is owed.
Finally, the inherent risk of certain jobs may support a finding that injuries sustained in personal attacks are work related. Both Culpepper [37] (in which the claimant worked as a cocktail waitress in a remote location) and California Compensation [38] (in which the claimant visited customers' homes to perform her job) considered such risk when awarding compensation to the claimants. In Bryan v. Best Western/Coachman's Inn, the court held that a motel security guard's injuries, sustained in a fight with a coworker's boyfriend, were work related because employment as a guard increased risk of assault. [39] These cases do not support Temple's claim, because, as the Board noted, waiting tables is not inherently dangerous work.