Opinion ID: 1404333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Elements of the Special Hazard Exception

Text: In regard to the going and coming rule, Professor Larson has explained, [t]he real reason for the premises rule is, and always has been, the impracticality of drawing another line at such a point that the administrative and judicial burden of interpreting and applying the rule would not be unmanageable. 1 A. Larson, supra, § 15.12(b), at 4-13 to -14. Similarly, the California Supreme Court concluded that, [t]he `premises line' has the advantage of enabling courts to ascertain the point at which employment begins  objectively and fairly. General Ins. Co. of America, 546 P.2d at 1363. [4] Professor Larson has identified a range of risk principle to explain the exceptions which have developed to the premises rule. 1 A. Larson, supra, § 15.15, at 4-28. He believes this principle, properly exercised by courts, will keep the exception in check. As he explains, the concept of course of employment follows that of arising out of employment; that is, the employment-connected risk is first recognized, and then a course-of-employment theory must be devised to permit compensation for that obviously occupational risk. This is exactly what has happened in [the special hazard cases]. Claimant has been subjected to a particular risk because of his employment, the risk of crossing certain railway tracks near the plant entrance, for example. Since it is so obvious that a causal relation exists between the work and the hazard, the always-illfitting course of employment concept has got to be stretched at least far enough to prevent the injustice of denying compensation for an injury admittedly caused by the employment. We have, then, a workable explanation of the exception to the premises rule: it is not proximity, or reasonable distance, or even the identifying of surrounding areas with the premises; it is simply that, when a court has satisfied itself that there is a distinct arising out of or causal connection between the conditions under which claimant must approach and leave the premises and the occurrence of the injury, it may hold that the course of employment extends as far as those conditions extend. Id. California has squarely addressed this question, and has devised a test for when a special hazard exists. General Ins. Co. of America, 546 P.2d at 1363. First, the injury must be causally related to the employment. Second, the hazard which caused the injury must be distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. Id. at 1364; see also Littlefield, 453 N.E.2d at 575 (adopting the same test under Ohio law). We believe that this test, in conjunction with the requirement that the employee be on a usual or normal route to work, strikes the proper balance between the going and coming rule and the special hazard exception. [5]