Opinion ID: 1351327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Workers' Compensation as an Exclusive Remedy

Text: Iowa Code section 85.20 does not bar a negligence suit against an employer unless the action arose while the employee was acting within the scope of her employment and the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. See Iowa Code § 85.20 (1997). The University contends Thayer's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment such that workers' compensation benefits are her exclusive remedy. Thayer contends she was merely going to work and is not covered by workers' compensation. Chapter 85 provides a zone of protection in workers' compensation making an employer responsible for workers' compensation benefits only for any and all personal injuries sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of employment.... Id. § 85.3(1); Waterhouse Water Conditioning, Inc. v. Waterhouse, 561 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Iowa 1997); Frost v. S.S. Kresge Co., 299 N.W.2d 646, 648 (Iowa 1980). In general, an injured employee's right to workers' compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer. Nelson v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 619 N.W.2d 385, 388 (Iowa 2000); Bailey v. Batchelder, 576 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Iowa 1998); Iowa Code §§ 85.3(1), 85.20. The question we must answer is whether Thayer's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment with the University. The words personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment includes [i]njuries to employees whose services are being performed on, in, or about the premises which are occupied, used, or controlled by the employer, and also injuries to those who are engaged elsewhere in places where their employer's business requires their presence and subjects them to dangers incident to the business. Iowa Code § 85.61(7). An injury arises out of employment if there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Waterhouse, 561 N.W.2d at 57. This inquiry focuses on the character and source of the risk giving rise to the injury and on the relationship of the risk to the nature of employment. Meade v. Ries, 642 N.W.2d 237, 243-44 (Iowa 2002) (citing Bailey, 576 N.W.2d at 338). The injury arises in the course of employment when the injury and the employment coincide as to time, place, and circumstances. Id. The facts before us show Thayer was riding in the vanpool on her way to work at 7:15 a.m. Generally, an accident that occurs while an employee is going to work or coming from work does not arise out of and in the course of employment. Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143, 150-51 (Iowa 1996); Frost, 299 N.W.2d at 648. This is known as the going-and-coming rule and it has certain recognized exceptions. Frost, 299 N.W.2d at 648-49. One such exception to the going-and-coming rule provides that where the employer has furnished transportation as an incident to employment, the injury is said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. [4] This is because the zone of protection may extend to include injuries occurring even beyond the physical parameters of the employer's premises. Bailey, 576 N.W.2d at 339; Frost, 299 N.W.2d at 648-49. [W]hen an injury occurs while a worker is being transported to an intended place of employment in a vehicle owned by the employer, the latter's control over that situation makes the vehicle an extension of the work place. Johnson v. Farmer, 537 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Iowa 1995) (citing 1 Arthur Larson, Larson's Workmens' Compensation Law § 17.00, at 4-209 (1995)). It is particularly true where ... a supervisory employee of the injured person's employer is, on the employer's behalf, directing the route and operation of the vehicle. Id. One relevant fact to consider is whether the employer has made a prevailing practice of transporting employees back and forth. Tucker v. Northeast Louisiana Tree Serv., 665 So.2d 672, 678 (La.Ct.App.1995). If such trips are made irregularly, that suggests the employer is providing the service gratuitously. Id. Here, the University owned the van and operated it as part of the vanpool program. One of Thayer's co-employees drove the van pursuant to a contract and policies made by the University. The University maintained the van, selected and trained the driver, set the driving schedule, approved the route, and set policies for use of the van. The operation of the van was at all times under the University's control. Thayer asserts the going-and-coming rule does not apply to her because she paid for the ride. [5] Thayer argues because the University offered the service for a fee, she is entitled to the same right of recovery as any other paying customer of public transportation would be entitled to recover. The record does not show whether Thayer actually paid anything at all for her ride. Proof that an employee paid for the ride to work does not take the injury out of the realm of arising out of and in the course of employment. The mere fact that an employee pays a fare for the transportation does not convert the employee into a passenger for hire with all the legal rights attendant such a person. See Neyland v. Maryland Cas. Co., 28 So.2d 351, 353 (La. Ct.App.1946). The essential character of the employee's status survives even after paying a fare. Id. The employer's provision of transportation does not depend on the payment of a fee for the ride, but solely on a person's status as an employee. Id. at 354-55; Mark A. Rothstein, Employment Law § 6.7, at ___ (2d ed.1999) (citing Peski v. Todd & Brown, Inc. 158 F.2d 59 (7th Cir.1946); Neyland, 28 So.2d at 351). Consideration for the transportation was not simply the payment of money, but the performance of work for the employer. Neyland, 28 So.2d at 355. It is reasonable to infer that because the ride depended upon the fact of employment, it was also incidental to it. See Iowa Code § 85.61(7) (employer responsible for injuries to an employee caused by dangers incident to employment). The employer-provided-conveyance exception is based on the awareness that, in certain situations, both the employer and the employee derive mutual benefit from the provision of travel incident to employment. Lassabe v. Simmons Drilling, Inc., 228 Mont. 94, 743 P.2d 568, 570 (1987). The only purpose of Thayer's trip was to go to the University of Iowa___the site of her employment___in the van furnished by her employer, all to the benefit of her employer. See, e.g., Receveur Const. Co./Realm, Inc. v. Rogers, 958 S.W.2d 18, 21 (Ky.1997) (though employer-provided conveyance was for employee's convenience, it was primarily of benefit to employer and workers' compensation benefits applied). The fact that an employee paid a fare or did not pay a fare is not determinative, in part, because the employer is not providing transportation for employees out of a desire to make a profit from the operation of the conveyance. See Neyland, 28 So.2d at 354. Rather, the employer operates such a program for other reasons not motivated by the desire to see a return from the transportation program. For instance, an employer may provide transportation for employees to and from work through the necessity of obtaining and retaining employees. Id. An employer may also do so in the interests of energy conservation or simply to assist employees in their commute. Croteau-Robinson v. Merrill Trust/Fleet Bank, 669 A.2d 763, 766 (Me. 1996). Here, the vanpool benefited the University by improving employee recruitment and retention and by reducing parking congestion on campus. Whether the ride was merely gratuitous or contractual incident to employment, while relevant, is not determinative. The rationale behind the going-and-coming rule is that the risks of employment continue throughout the journey and because the employer is in control of those risks by providing transportation, the employee is considered to be within the course of employment. Hansen v. Estate of Harvey, 119 Idaho 333, 806 P.2d 426, 431 (1991) (emphasis added). Payment of a fee is not determinative___control is the key. Thayer was riding in a van provided by the University, her employer, and driven by a co-employee. The University had sole control of the vanpool program. Thayer and the other riders were on their way to work when the accident happened. As such we find Thayer's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.31. See, e.g., Schauder v. Pfeifer, 173 A.D.2d 598, 570 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y.App.Div.1991) (where employer provided vanpool program for employees, furnished the van, formed and maintained the program, and rendered assistance necessary, plaintiff's injuries arose out of her employment making her exclusive remedy workers' compensation).