You are on page 1of 11

G.k. No.

L-26341 November 27, 1968

WCkkMLN'S CCMLNSA1ICN CCMMISSICN and IkLNLA M. A8LC, for herse|f and |n beha|f of her m|nor ch||dren LDWIN,
LDGAk and LDNA, a|| surnamed A8LC, respondenLs.
lolslto c. noflleoo fot petltlooet.
vlllovlejo ooJ vllloooevo fot tespooJeot wotkmeo's compeosotloo commlssloo.
Coolbetto c. Opooq fot tespooJeot lteoeo M. loblo ooJ bet mloot cbllJteo.
CAS1kC, !"#
1hls ls an appeal by Lhe llollo uock and Lnglneerlng Company (herelnafLer referred Lo as Lhe luLCC) from Lhe declslon daLed
lebruary 28, 1966 of Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon Commlsslon (herelnafLer referred Lo as Lhe Commlsslon) afflrmlng Lhe declslon
of Lhe 8eglonal Cfflce vll ln llollo ClLy, and orderlng Lhe luLCC Lo pay Lo Lhe wldow and chlldren of 1eodoro C. ablo (lrenea M.
ablo and Lhe mlnors Ldwln, Ldgar and Ldna, all surnamed ablo) Lhe sum of 4,000, Lo pay Lo Lhe wldow 89 as relmbursemenL for
burlal expenses and 300 as aLLorney's fees, and Lo pay Lo Lhe Commlsslon Lhe amounL of 46 as fees pursuanL Lo secLlon 33 of Lhe
Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL, as amended.
AL abouL 3:02 o'clock ln Lhe afLernoon of !anuary 29, 1960, ablo, who was employed as a mechanlc of Lhe luLCC, whlle walklng on
hls way home, was shoL Lo deaLh ln fronL of, and abouL 20 meLers away from, Lhe maln luLCC gaLe, on a prlvaLe road commonly
called Lhe luLCC road. 1he slayer, MarLln Cordero, was noL heard Lo say anyLhlng before or afLer Lhe kllllng. 1he moLlve for Lhe crlme
was and sLlll ls unknown as Cordero was hlmself kllled before he could be Lrled for ablo's deaLh. AL Lhe Llme of Lhe kllllng, ablo's
companlon was 8odolfo Calopez, anoLher employee, who, llke ablo, had flnlshed overLlme work aL 3:00 p.m. and was golng home.
lrom Lhe maln luLCC gaLe Lo Lhe spoL where ablo was kllled, Lhere were four "carlnderlas" on Lhe lefL slde of Lhe road and Lwo
"carlnderlas" and a resldenLlal house on Lhe rlghL slde. 1he enLlre lengLh of Lhe road ls nowhere sLaLed ln Lhe record.
Accordlng Lo Lhe luLCC, Lhe Commlsslon erred (1) ln holdlng LhaL ablo's deaLh occurred ln Lhe cootse of employmenL and ln
presumlng LhaL lL otose oot of Lhe employmenL, (2) ln applylng Lhe "proxlmlLy rule," and (3) ln holdlng LhaL ablo's deaLh was
an occlJeot wlLhln Lhe purvlew of Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL.
1he prlnclpal lssue ls wheLher ablo's deaLh comes wlLhln Lhe meanlng and lnLendmenL of LhaL "decepLlvely slmple and llLlglously
phrase 1he Lwo componenLs of Lhe coverage formula - "arlslng ouL of" and "ln Lhe course of employmenL."
1he Lwo
componenLs of Lhe coverage formula - "arlslng ouL of" and "ln Lhe course of employmenL" - are sald Lo be separaLe LesLs whlch
musL be lndependenLly saLlsfled,
however, lL should noL be forgoLLen LhaL Lhe baslc concepL of compensaLlon coverage ls unlLary,
noL dual, and ls besL expressed ln Lhe word, "work-connecLlon," because an uncompromlslng lnslsLence on an lndependenL
appllcaLlon of each of Lhe Lwo porLlons of Lhe LesL can, ln cerLaln cases, exclude clearly work-connecLed ln[urles.
1he words "arlslng
ouL of" refer Lo Lhe orlgln or cause of Lhe accldenL, and are descrlpLlve of lLs characLer, whlle Lhe words "ln Lhe course of" refer Lo
Lhe Llme, place and clrcumsLances under whlch Lhe accldenL Lakes place.

As a maLLer of general proposlLlon, an ln[ury or accldenL ls sald Lo arlse "ln Lhe course of employmenL" when lL Lakes place wlLhln Lhe
perlod of Lhe employmenL, aL a place where Lhe employee reasonably may be, and whlle he ls fulfllllng hls duLles or ls engaged ln
dolng someLhlng lncldenLal LhereLo.

1he general rule ln workmen's compensaLlon law known as Lhe "golng & comlng rule," slmply sLaLed, ls LhaL "ln Lhe absence of
speclal clrcumsLances, an employee ln[ured ln, golng Lo, or comlng from hls place of work ls excluded from Lhe beneflLs of
workmen's compensaLlon acLs."
1hls rule, however, admlLs of four well-recognlzed excepLlons, Lo wlL: (1) where Lhe employee ls
proceedlng Lo or from hls work on Lhe premlses of hls employer, (2) where Lhe employee ls abouL Lo enLer or abouL Lo leave Lhe
premlses of hls employer by way of Lhe excluslve or cusLomary means of lngress and egress, (3) where Lhe employee ls charged,
whlle on hls way Lo or from hls place of employmenL or aL hls home, or durlng hls employmenL, wlLh some duLy or speclal errand
connecLed wlLh hls employmenL, and (4) where Lhe employer, as an lncldenL of Lhe employmenL, provldes Lhe means of
LransporLaLlon Lo and from Lhe place of employmenL.

We address ourselves parLlcularly Lo an examlnaLlon and conslderaLlon of Lhe second excepLlon, l.e., ln[urles susLalned off Lhe
premlses of Lhe employer, buL whlle uslng a cusLomary means of lngress and egress.
1hls excepLlon, known as Lhe "proxlmlLy rule," was applled ln lblllpploe llbet ltocessloq co., loc. vs. Ampll.
1here, Lhe employee, aL
abouL 3:13 a.m., whlle proceedlng Lo hls place of work and runnlng Lo avold Lhe raln, sllpped and fell lnLo a dlLch fronLlng Lhe maln
gaLe of Lhe employer's facLory, as a resulL of whlch he dled Lhe nexL day. 1he sole quesLlon was wheLher or noL Lhe accldenL whlch
caused Lhe employee's deaLh arose ouL of and ln Lhe course of hls employmenL. 1hls CourL ruled ln favor of Lhe clalmanL Lhus:
1he very case of Afable vs. Slnger Sewlng Machlne Co. lnvoked by Lhe peLlLloner lnLlmaLed LhaL "we do noL of course
mean Lo lmply LhaL an employee can never recover for ln[urles suffered whlle on hls way Lo or from work. 1haL depends
on Lhe naLure of hls employmenL." Conslderlng Lhe facLs found by Lhe Commlsslon, namely, LhaL Lhe deceased Angel Arlar
was noL under any shlfL rouLlne, LhaL hls asslgnmenL covered Lhe enLlre worklng hours of Lhe facLory, LhaL Lhe flrsL
worklng hour sLarLs aL 6:00 o'clock ln Lhe mornlng, LhaL lL Lakes aL leasL LhlrLy mlnuLes before Lhe machlne operaLes aL full
speed or load, LhaL Lhe spoL where he fell (dlLch fronLlng peLlLloner's facLory or sldewalk of lLs premlses), ls lmmedlaLely
proxlmaLe Lo hls place of work, Lhe accldenL ln quesLlon musL be deemed Lo have occurred wlLhln Lhe zone of hls
employmenL and Lherefore arose ouL of and ln Lhe course Lhereof. ln Sallllg vs. lnsular Lumber Co., C.8. no. 28931,
SepLember 10, 1928, referred Lo ln Lhe CommenLs on Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon Commlsslon AcL by Morabe and
lnLon, 1933 edlLlon, compensaLlon was allowed for ln[ury recelved by a laborer from an accldenL ln golng Lo hls place of
work, along a paLh or way owned by hls employer and commonly used by Lhe laLLer's laborers.
ln conLrasL ls lompooqo 5oqot uevelopmeot co., loc. vs. Ooltoz,
whlch concerned ln[urles susLalned by a cenLrlfugal operaLor. Pe
had reporLed for work aL 9:30 p.m. (March 7, 1938) and was dlsmlssed aL 3:30 Lhe followlng mornlng. Soon "afLer he sLepped ouL of
Lhe company gaLe, and whlle sLandlng abouL 2-x meLers from lL beLween Lhe shoulder of Lhe hlghway and a rallroad LhaL came from
lnslde Lhe compound and lnLersecLed Lhe hlghway, walLlng for a rlde home, he was bumped by a [eepney, as a resulL of whlch he
susLalned" ln[urles. ln holdlng LhaL Lhese ln[urles were "noL produced by an accldenL "arlslng ouL of and ln Lhe course of
employmenL," " Lhls CourL reasoned Lhus:
1he compensablllLy of an ln[ury suffered by an employee proceedlng Lo or comlng from hls work depends upon wheLher
or noL lL ls "work-connecLed." As Chlef !usLlce kenlson of new Pampshlre has puL lL, "Lhe facL LhaL Lhe employee ls
Lravelllng Lo or from work on a publlc hlghway does noL necessarlly exclude coverage (8rousseau vs. 8lacksLone Mllls, 130
A 2d 343, 343). Conversely, lL ls noL enough Lo say LhaL Lhe employee would noL have been on Lhe publlc hlghway had lL
noL been for hls [ob, slnce Lhe same can usually be sald of Lhe general publlc (ayne & uolan vs. lndusLrlal Commlsslon, 46
nL 2d 923). 1he law, ln effecL, lnsures Lhe employee agalnsL losses arlslng ftom tbe petlls of bls wotk. ln oLher words, Lhe
Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL covers occupaLlonal ln[urles, whlch, as such, musL have a coosotlve coooectloo wlLh
someLhlng, noL merely ln common wlLh Lhe publlc, buL pecollot Lo Lhe employmenL. ln order Lo warranL recovery for off-
Lhe-premlses ln[urles, lL musL be shown LhaL Lhere has been a very speclal danger, some parLlcular rlsk whlch tbe
employet coolJ bove cooseJ ot olloweJ to exlst. Pence,
lL ls slgnlflcanL LhaL pracLlcally all successful off-Lhe-premlses cases have lnvolved ootmol toote of occess to tbe
ploot, or an lcy sldewalk ad[acenL Lo Lhe premlses and Lherefore lJeotlfleJ wltb tbe ptemlses lo tbe seose tbot
tbe employet sboolJ bove temoveJ tbe lce. (Lmphasls ours.)
lL ls Lrue LhaL ln hlllpplne llber rocesslng Co. v. Ampll, C.8. no. L-8130 (!une 30, 1936), we held Lhe employer llable for
an ln[ury susLalned by an employee who, as he was toooloq to bls ploce of wotk to ovolJ tbe tolo, sllpped ooJ fell loto o
Jltcb lo ftoot of tbe foctoty's maln gaLe and near Lhe same. 1be Jltcb wos, bowevet, lo ltself oo obvloos bozotJ whlch,
owlng Lo lLs proxlmlLy Lo Lhe gaLe, Lhe employer should have Laken measures Lo remove. 1hus, Lhru hls lnacLlon, he had
conLrlbuLed, ln a speclal way, Lo Lhe occurrence of Lhe accldenL.
ln Lhe case aL bar, no such speclal clrcumsLance appears Lo exlsL. 1here ls no pottlcolot causaLlve connecLlon beLween Lhe
ln[ury susLalned by Lhe employee and elLher hls work or hls employer. AlLhough, as sLaLed ln Lhe declslon appealed from,
Lhe record does noL show LhaL Lhe company "had Laken measures Lo make Lhe walLlng place safe for Lhe employees,"
nelLher does Lhe record show elLher LhaL Lhe accldenL occurred aL Lhe usual walLlng place of Lhe employees, or LhaL sald
place was pottlcolotly unsafe.
Cur Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL belng essenLlally Amerlcan ln orlgln and LexL, lL ls noL amlss Lo pay deference Lo perLlnenL
Amerlcan [urlsprudence. ln Lhe preclse area of law here lnvolved, we can draw guldance from an affluence of lederal and SLaLe
lrom Samuel 8. PorovlLz' lojoty ooJ ueotb ooJet wotkmeo's compeosotloo lows (1944), pp. 139 Lo 163, we glean Lhe followlng
Suppose, however, LhaL Lhe ln[ury occurs on Lhe way Lo work or oo tbe woy bome ftom wotk. ln[urles golng Lo or from
work have caused many [udlclal upheavals.
1he quesLlon here ls llmlLed Lo wheLher Lhe ln[urles are "ln Lhe course of" and noL "ouL of" Lhe employmenL. Pow Lhe
ln[ury occurred ls noL ln polnL. SLreeL rlsks, wheLher Lhe employee was walklng or drlvlng, and all oLher slmllar quesLlons
deal wlLh Lhe rlsk of ln[ury or "ouL of" Lhe employmenL. "ln Lhe course of" deals malnly wlLh Lhe elemenL of Llme and
space, or "Llme, place and clrcumsLances."
1hus, lf Lhe ln[ury occurred flfLeen mlnuLes before worklng hours and wlLhln one hundred feeL of Lhe employer's
premlses, on sldewalks or publlc roads, Lhe quesLlon of "ln Lhe course of" Lhe employmenL ls flaLly ralsed.
Some of our sLaLes refuse Lo exLend Lhls deflnlLlon of "ln Lhe course of" Lo lnclude Lhese ln[urles. MosL of Lhe sLaLes wlll
proLecL Lhe employee from Lhe momenL hls fooL or person reaches Lhe employet's ptemlses, wheLher he arrlves early or
laLe. 1hese sLaLes flnd someLhlng sacred abouL Lhe employmenL premlses and deflne "premlses" very broadly, oot ooly to
locloJe ptemlses owoeJ by tbe employet, bot olso ptemlses leoseJ, blteJ, sopplleJ ot oseJ by blm, eveo ptlvote olleywoys
metely oseJ by tbe employet. AJjoceot ptlvote ptemlses ote ptotecteJ by mooy stotes, ooJ o few ptotect tbe employee
eveo oo oJjoceot pobllc slJewolks ooJ stteets. Where a clLy or any employer owns or conLrols an lsland, all lLs sLreeLs are
proLecLed premlses.
1here ls no reason ln prlnclple why sLaLes should noL proLecL employees for a teosoooble petloJ of tlme ptlot to ot oftet
wotkloq boots and for a teosoooble Jlstooce before reachlng or afLer leavlng Lhe employer's premlses. 1he Supreme
CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes has declared LhaL lL wlll noL overLurn any sLaLe declslon LhaL so enlarges Lhe scope of lLs acL.
Pence, a deaf worker, Lrespasslng on rallroad Lracks ad[acenL Lo hls employer's brlck-maklng premlses (buL shown by hls
superlnLendenL Lhe speclflc shorL crosslng over Lhe Lrack), and kllled by a Lraln, was held Lo be ln Lhe course of hls
employmenL when hlL by an oncomlng Lraln flfLeen mlnuLes before hls day would have begun. So long as causal relaLlon
Lo Lhe employmenL ls dlscernlble, no federal quesLlon arlses.
1he narrow rule LhaL a worker ls noL ln Lhe course of hls employmenL unLll he crosses Lhe employmenL Lhreshold ls lLself
sub[ecL Lo many exceptloos. Cff-premlses ln[urles to ot ftom wotk, ln boLh llberal and narrow sLaLes, are compensable (1)
lf Lhe employee ls on Lhe way Lo or from work ln a vehlcle owned or supplled by Lhe employer, wheLher ln a publlc (e.g.,
Lhe employer's sLreeL car) or prlvaLe conveyance, (2) lf Lhe employee ls sub[ecL Lo call aL all hours or aL Lhe momenL of
ln[ury, (3) lf Lhe employee ls Lravelllng for Lhe employer, l.e., Lravelllng workers, (4) lf Lhe employer pays for Lhe
employee's Llme from Lhe momenL he leaves hls home Lo hls reLurn home, (3) lf Lhe employee ls on hls way Lo do furLher
work aL home, even Lhough on a flxed salary, (6) where Lhe employee ls requlred Lo brlng hls auLomoblle Lo hls place of
buslness for use Lhere. Otbet exceptloos ooJoobteJly ote epoolly jostlfleJ, JepeoJeot oo tbelt owo pecollot
Schnelder (sopto, aL p. 117) makes Lhls slgnlflcanL sLaLemenL:
1he proxlmlLy rule excepLlon Lo Lhe general golng and comlng rule ls LhaL an employee ls generally consldered Lo be ln Lhe
course of hls employmenL whlle comlng Lo or golng from hls work, wbeo, tbooqb off tbe octool ptemlses of bls employet,
be ls stlll lo close ptoxlmlty tbeteto, ls ptoceeJloq Jlllqeotly ot oo opptoptlote tlme, by teosoooble meoos, ovet tbe oototol,
ptoctlcol, costomoty, cooveoleot ooJ tecoqolzeJ woy of loqtess, ot eqtess eltbet oo looJ ooJet tbe coottol of tbe
employet, ot oo oJjoceot ptopetty wltb tbe exptess ot lmplleJ cooseot of tbe employet.
Cn pp. 98 Lo 99 of 83 AL8, we flnd Lhe followlng dlsqulslLlon:
1he compensaLlon acLs have been very generally held noL Lo auLhorlze an award ln case of an ln[ury or deaLh from a perll
whlch ls common Lo all manklnd, or Lo whlch Lhe publlc aL large ls exposed. 28 8.C. L. 804. And Lhey do noL as a general
rule cover ln[urles recelved whlle golng Lo or from work on publlc sLreeLs, where Lhe employee has noL reached, or has
lefL Lhe employer's premlses. 1he quesLlon wheLher an ln[ury arlses ouL of and ln Lhe course of Lhe employmenL,
however, ls one dependenL upon Lhe facLs of each case, and ln some cases, where an ln[ury occured whlle Lhe employee
was golng Lo or from work, buL was ln Lhe sLreeL ln fronL of Lhe employer's premlses, lL has been held compensable.
1hus, ln Lhe reporLed case (8arneLL v. 8rLlllng CafeLerla Co., oote, 83) Lhe ln[ury was held Lo have arlsen ouL of and ln Lhe
course of Lhe employmenL, where Lhe employee sllpped on lce on Lhe sldewalk lmmedlaLely ln fronL of Lhe employer's
place of buslness, whlle on her way Lo reporL for duLy, and [usL before enLerlng by Lhe only enLrance Lo her place of
employmenL. 1he courL here recognlzed Lhe general rule LhaL, lf an employee ls ln[ured whlle golng Lo or from hls work Lo
hls house, or Lo or from some polnL noL vlslLed for Lhe dlscharge of a duLy arlslng ouL of Lhe employmenL, or whlle ln Lhe
use of a publlc hlghway, he does noL come wlLhln Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL, buL sLaLed LhaL
Lhere ls an excepLlon Lo Lhls rule and tbot tbe employmeot ls oot llmlteJ by tbe octool tlme wbeo tbe wotkmoo teocbes
tbe sceoe of bls lobot ooJ beqlos lt, ot wbeo be ceoses, bot locloJes o teosoooble tlme ooJ oppottoolty befote ooJ oftet,
wblle be ls ot ot oeot bls ploce of employmeot. 1he courL reasoned LhaL ln Lhe case aL bar, oltbooqb tbe employee boJ oot
eoteteJ tbe employet's ploce of bosloess, ooJ tbe slJewolk wos o pobllc blqbwoy so mocb tbetefote os wos lo ftoot of tbe
employet's ploce of bosloess wos o oecessoty oJjooct, oseJ lo coooectloo wltb tbe bosloess, ooJ tbot tbe slJewolk wos to
o llmlteJ Jeqtee ooJ potpose o pott of tbe employet's ptemlses.
ln lndusLrlal Commlsslon v. 8arber (1927) 117 Chlo SL 373, 139 nL 363, Lhe ln[ury was held Lo have arlsen ln Lhe course of
Lhe employmenL where an employee, abouL flve mlnuLes before Lhe hour when he was Lo go on duLy, was sLruck by an
auLomoblle owned and drlven by anoLher employee, wlLhln a shorL dlsLance from Lhe employer's planL, whlch was
locaLed aL Lhe dead end of o stteet molotoloeJ by tbe employet ftom lts ploot to tbe lotetsectloo wltb oootbet stteet, ooJ,
oltbooqb tbe stteet wos o pobllc ooe, lt leJ oowbete except to tbe employet's ploot, ooJ oll of lts employees wete obllqeJ
to ose lt lo qoloq to ooJ ftom tbelt wotk. 1he courL sLaLed LhaL where Lhe condlLlons under Lhe conLrol of an lndusLrlal
planL are such LhaL Lhe employee has no opLlon buL Lo pursue a glven course wlLh reference Lo such condlLlons and
envlronmenLs, Lhe pursuance of such course ls an lmplled obllgaLlon of Lhe employer ln hls conLracL wlLh such employee,
and LhaL when he, for Lhe purpose of enLerlng hls employmenL, has enLered lnLo Lhe sphere or zone conLrolled by hls
employer and ls pursulng a course wlLh reference Lo whlch he has no opLlon, he ls Lhen noL only wlLhln Lhe condlLlons and
envlronmenLs of Lhe planL of hls employer, buL ls Lhen ln Lhe course of hls employmenL, and LhaL, when he recelves an
ln[ury aLLrlbuLable Lo such condlLlons and envlronmenLs, Lhere ls a dlrecL causal connecLlon beLween hls employmenL and
hls ln[ury, and Lhe ln[ury falls wlLhln Lhe class of lndusLrlal ln[urles for whlch compensaLlon has been provlded by Lhe
Workmen's CompensaLlon Law.
99 C.!.S., aL pp. 807-814, has Lhls Lo say:
lL ls lald down as a general rule, known as Lhe "golng and comlng" rule, LhaL, ln Lhe absence of speclal clrcumsLances, and
excepL ln cerLaln unusual clrcumsLances, and where noLhlng else appears, harm or ln[ury susLalned by an employee whlle
golng Lo or from hls work ls noL compensable. Such ln[ury, or accldenL, ls regarded by Lhe welghL of auLhorlLy of many
courLs as noL arlslng ouL of hls employmenL, and as noL belng, or noL occurrlng, ln Lhe course Lhereof.
Powever, Lhls rule ls noL lnflexlble, ls noL of lnevlLable appllcaLlon, and ls sub[ecL Lo quallflcaLlons, and Lo excepLlons
whlch depend on Lhe naLure, clrcumsLances, and condlLlons of Lhe parLlcular employmenL, Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe
parLlcular case, and Lhe cause of Lhe ln[ury.
Ioyoes vs. lotlocb lotests
expresses wlLh enllghLenlng clarlLy Lhe raLlonale for exLendlng Lhe scope of "course of employmenL" Lo
cerLaln "off-premlses" ln[urles:
We are urged here Lo agaln recognlze and apply Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween off-premlses ln[urles whlch occur on prlvaLe
properLy and Lhose whlch occur on publlc sLreeLs and hlghways. 1he exLenslon of Lhe course of employmenL Lo off-
premlses ln[urles ls noL based upon Lhe prlnclple whlch would [usLlfy a dlsLlncLlon upon Lhe narrow ground of prlvaLe and
publlc properLy, lL ls noL sound Lo say LhaL whlle an employee ls on publlc hlghway he ls always Lhere as a member of Lhe
publlc and ln nowlse ln Lhe exerclse of any rlghL conferred by hls conLracL Lo employmenL, nor ls lL a compleLe answer Lo
say LhaL whlle he ls on hls employer's premlses hls presence Lhere ls by conLracL rlghL, oLherwlse he would be a
Lrespasser. 1he quesLlon of wheLher or noL one ls a covered employee should noL be resolved by Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe
law relaLlng Lo rlghLs Lo enLer upon lands, or by law of Lrespass, llcensee, lnvlLee or oLherwlse.
A subsLanLlal and falr ground Lo [usLlfy Lhe exLenslon of Lhe course of employmenL beyond Lhe premlses of Lhe employer
ls Lo exLend lLs scope Lo Lhe necessary rlsks and hazards assoclaLed wlLh Lhe employmenL. 1hese rlsks may or may noL be
on Lhe premlses of Lhe employer and for Lhls reason Lhere ls no [usLlflcaLlon Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween exLended rlsks on
publlc hlghways and prlvaLe paLhways. ln facL lL ls aL mosL a dlsLlncLlon wlLhouL a dlfference. under Lhe beLLer reasoned
cases Lhe Lechnlcal sLaLus as publlc or prlvaLe ls obvlously of no momenL or ln any evenL ln and of lLself ls noL concluslve.
Llkewlse enllghLenlng ls Lhe followlng explanaLlon of Lhe premlses rule excepLlons:
we bove, tbeo o wotkoble exploootloo of tbe exceptloo to tbe ptemlses tole. lt ls oot oeotoess, ot teosoooble Jlstooce, ot
eveo tbe lJeotlfyloq ot sottoooJloq oteos wltb tbe ptemlses, lt ls slmply tbot, wbeo o coott bos sotlsfleJ ltself tbot tbete ls
o Jlstloct "otlsloq oot of" ot coosol coooectloo betweeo tbe cooJltloos ooJet wblcb clolmoot most opptoocb ooJ leove tbe
ptemlses ooJ tbe occotteoce of tbe lojoty, lt moy bolJ tbot tbe cootse of employmeot exteoJs os fot os tbose cooJltloos
exteoJ. (lotsoo's wotkmeo's compeosotloo low, 1965 eJ., vol. 1, pp. 210-211)
We now dlrecL our aLLenLlon Lo Lhe cause of Lhe employee's deaLh: assaulL.
An "assaulL," alLhough resulLlng from a dellberaLe acL of Lhe slayer, ls consldered an "accldenL" wlLhln Lhe meanlng of sec. 2 of Lhe
Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL, slnce Lhe word "accldenL" ls lnLended Lo lndlcaLe LhaL "Lhe acL causlng Lhe ln[ury shall be casual or
unforeseen, an acL for whlch Lhe ln[ured parLy ls noL legally responslble."

ln Lhe cases where Lhe assaulL was proven Lo have been work-connecLed, compensaLlon was awarded. ln Novo, sopto, Lhe
helmsman of a boaL was engaged ln haullng Lhe shlp's cable and ln colllng Lhe cable parLly occupled by a foldlng bed of one of Lhe
passengers. 1hls passenger, upon belng asked, declared hls ownershlp of Lhe bed. nava expressed hls lnLenLlon of pushlng lL ouL of
Lhe way and proceeded Lo do so. Angered by Lhls, Lhe passenger exchanged hoL words wlLh nava, and Lhen, wlLh a plece of wood,
[abbed nava aL Lhe plL of Lhe sLomach. AL Lhls polnL, Lhe passenger's broLher ran up Lo nava and sLabbed hlm Lo deaLh. 1he deaLh
was ad[udged compensable.
ln 8obol looJ 1toospottotloo co. vs. vJo. Je MooJoqolt,
Lhe Lruck whlch MandagulL was drlvlng colllded wlLh a cycllsL golng ln Lhe
opposlLe dlrecLlon. 1he laLLer Lurned around and lmmedlaLely pursued Lhe bus. Pe overLook lL a few mlnuLes laLer when lL sLopped
Lo Lake on passengers. 1he drlver Lhen dlsembarked from Lhe bus Lo wash hls hands aL a drugsLore nearby. 1he cycllsL followed hlm
Lhere and knlfed hlm Lo deaLh. We afflrmed Lhe granL of compensaLlon upon Lhe flndlng LhaL Lhe deaLh arose ouL of and ln Lhe
course of employmenL.
ln Collclo vs. uy loc,
Lhe employee, ablo Carla, was asked Lo work ln lleu of anoLher employee who had been suspended from
work upon requesL of hls labor unlon, whlle Carla was worklng, Lhe suspended employee asked hlm Lo lnLercede for hlm, buL Carla
refused, an alLercaLlon resulLed, shorLly LhereafLer Lhe suspended employee sLabbed Carla Lo deaLh. 1he deaLh was held
compensable because "Lhe ln[ury susLalned by Lhe deceased was caused by an accldenL arlslng ouL of hls employmenL slnce Lhe
evldence ls clear LhaL Lhe flghL whlch resulLed ln Lhe kllllng of Lhe deceased had lLs orlgln or cause ln Lhe facL LhaL he was placed ln
Lhe [ob prevlously occupled by Lhe assallanL."
ln Lhe Lhree cases above-clLed, Lhere was evldence as Lo Lhe moLlve of Lhe assallanL.
ln A. l. 5ootos, loc. vs. uobocol,
Lhe deaLh of an employee-drlver who, whlle drlvlng a cab, was kllled by an unldenLlfled passenger,
was held compensable by Lhe Commlsslon. Powever, Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe assaulL arose ouL of Lhe employmenL, was noL
ralsed on appeal Lo Lhls CourL.
ln 8otooqos 1toospottotloo compooy vs. vJo. Je klveto,
LhaL quesLlon was ralsed. Whlle Lhe employee-drlver was drlvlng a bus, a
passenger boarded lL and saL dlrecLly behlnd Lhe drlver. AfLer abouL LhlrLy mlnuLes, durlng whlch Lhe passenger and Lhe drlver never
so much as exchanged a word, Lhe passenger shoL Lhe drlver Lo deaLh and Lhen fled. 1here was no compeLenL proof as Lo Lhe cause
of Lhe assaulL, alLhough Lhere were lnLlmaLlons LhaL Lhe lncldenL arose from a personal grudge. 1he ma[orlLy declslon
ruled Lhe
deaLh compensable. 1he bases: (1) Cnce lL ls proved LhaL Lhe employee dled lo tbe cootse of Lhe employmenL, Lhe legal
presumpLlon, ln Lhe absence of subsLanLlal evldence Lo Lhe conLrary, ls LhaL Lhe clalm "comes wlLhln Lhe provlslons of Lhe
compensaLlon law" (sec. 43), ln oLher words, LhaL Lhe lncldenL otose oot of Lhe workman's employmenL. (2) uoubLs as Lo rlghLs Lo
compensaLlon are resolved ln favor of Lhe employee and hls dependenLs. (3) 1he Commlssloner's declaraLlon on Lhe work-
connecLlon mlghL be blndlng on Lhe CourL. (4) 1here are employmenLs whlch lncrease Lhe rlsk of assaulL on Lhe person of Lhe
employee and lL ls ln LhaL sense LhaL an ln[ury or harm susLalned by Lhe assaulLed worker arlses ouL of Lhe employmenL, because Lhe
lncreased rlsk Lo assaulL supplles Lhe llnk or connecLlon beLween Lhe ln[ury and Lhe employmenL. Among Lhe [obs enumeraLed as
lncreaslng Lhe rlsk of assaulL are (a) [obs havlng Lo do wlLh keeplng Lhe peace or guardlng properLy, (b) [obs havlng Lo do wlLh
keeplng or carrylng of money whlch sub[ecL Lo Lhe employee Lo Lhe rlsk of assaulL because of Lhe lncreased LempLaLlon Lo robbery,
(c) [obs whlch expose Lhe employee Lo dlrecL conLacL wlLh lawless and lrresponslble members of Lhe communlLy, llke LhaL of a
barLender, and (d) work as bus drlver, Laxl drlver or sLreeL car conducLor.
lL has been sald LhaL an employmenL may elLher lncrease rlsk of assaulL because of lLs naLure or be Lhe sub[ecL-maLLer of a dlspuLe
leadlng Lo Lhe assaulL. 1he flrsL klnd of employmenL, Lhe so-called "lncreased rlsk" [obs comprehend (1) [obs lnvolvlng dangerous
duLles, such as LhaL of guardlng Lhe employer's properLy, LhaL of carrylng or keeplng money, LhaL where Lhe employee ls exposed Lo
lawless or lrresponslble members of Lhe publlc, or LhaL whlch sub[ecLs hlm Lo lncreased or lndlscrlmlnaLe conLacL wlLh Lhe publlc,
such as Lhe [ob of a sLreeL car conducLor or Laxl-drlver,
(2) [obs where Lhe employee ls placed ln a dangerous envlronmenL,
(3) [obs of employees whose work Lakes Lhem on Lhe hlghway. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe employmenL lLself may be Lhe sub[ecL-maLLer
of a dlspuLe leadlng Lo Lhe assaulL as where a supervlsor ls assaulLed by workmen he has flred, or where Lhe argumenL was over Lhe
performance of work or possesslon of Lools or Lhe llke, or where Lhe vlolence was due Lo labor dlspuLes.

ln klveto, sopto, Lhe unexplalned assaulL on Lhe employee was consldered Lo have otlseo ouL of Lhe employmenL because lL occurred
ln Lhe cootse of employmenL. 1hls CourL relled on Lhe presumpLlon of law LhaL ln any proceedlng for Lhe enforcemenL of a clalm, Lhe
clalm ls presumed Lo come wlLhln Lhe provlslons of Lhe AcL.
Accordlng Lo Lhls CourL, "Lhls sLaLuLory presumpLlon was copled from
new ?ork." Concernlng Lhe correspondlng new ?ork provlslon of law, Larson has Lhls Lo say:
ln a few [urlsdlcLlons, noLably new ?ork and MassachuseLLs, a sLaLuLory presumpLlon ln favor of coverage has flgured ln
unexplalned-accldenL cases. 1he MassachuseLLs sLaLuLe provldes:
ln any clalm for compensaLlon, where Lhe employee has been kllled, or ls physlcally or menLally unable Lo
LesLlfy, lL shall be presumed, ln Lhe absence of subsLanLlal evldence Lo Lhe conLrary, LhaL Lhe clalm comes
wlLhln Lhe provlslons of Lhls chapLer, LhaL sufflclenL noLlce of Lhe ln[ury has been glven, and LhaL Lhe ln[ury or
deaLh was noL occasloned by Lhe wllful lnLenLlon of Lhe employee Lo ln[ure or klll hlmself or anoLher.
1hls provlslon was largely copled from Lhe new ?ork secLlon on presumpLlons, excepL LhaL Lhe new ?ork acL creaLes Lhe
presumpLlon ln all cases, noL merely Lhose lnvolvlng an employee's deaLh or lnablllLy Lo LesLlfy.
1he sweeplng lncluslveness of Lhls language mlghL seem aL flrsL glance Lo mean LhaL Lhe mere maklng of a clalm ls also
Lhe maklng of a ptlmo focle case, as long as deaLh or ln[ury ls shown Lo have occurred. 1he new ?ork and MassachuseLLs
courLs have noL so lnLerpreLed Lhese sLaLuLes, however. lL seems Lo be necessary Lo esLabllsh some klnd of prellmlnary
llnk wlLh Lhe employmenL before Lhe presumpLlon can aLLach. CLherwlse, Lhe clalmanL wldow would have merely Lo say,
"My husband, who was one of your employee, has dled, and l Lherefore clalm deaLh beneflLs," whereupon Lhe afflrmaLlve
burden would devolve upon Lhe employer Lo prove LhaL Lhere was no connecLlon beLween Lhe deaLh and Lhe
lL ls noL yeL enLlrely clear whaL lnlLlal demonsLraLlon of employmenL-connecLlon wlll glve Lhe presumpLlon a fooLhold.
ApparenLly, Lhe ldea ls Lo rule ouL cases ln whlch clalmanL can show nelLher LhaL Lhe ln[ury occurred ln Lhe course of
employmenL nor LhaL lL arose ouL of lL, as where he conLracLed a dlsease buL has no evldence Lo show where he goL lL. lf
Lhere ls evldence LhaL Lhe ln[ury occurred ln Lhe course of employmenL, Lhe presumpLlon wlll usually supply Lhe "arlslng-
ouL-of-employmenL" facLor." Larson's Workmen CompensaLlon Law (1963) vol. 1, pp. 123-124.
We also quoLe from Lhe declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals of new ?ork ln uoos vs. CooJetmoo & 5oos:

1he sLaLuLe ls noL lnLended Lo relleve compleLely an employee from Lhe burden of showlng LhaL accldenLal ln[urles
suffered by hlm acLually were susLalned ln Lhe course of hls employmenL. "lL ls noL Lhe law LhaL mere proof of an
accldenL, wlLhouL oLher evldence, creaLes Lhe presumpLlon under secLlon 21 of Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon Law
(Consol. Law, c. 67) LhaL Lhe accldenL arose ouL of and ln Lhe course of Lhe employmenL. Cn Lhe conLrary, lL has been
frequenLly held, dlrecLly and lndlrecLly, LhaL Lhere musL be some evldence from whlch Lhe concluslon can be drawn LhaL
Lhe ln[urles dld arlse ouL of and ln Lhe course of Lhe employmenL." roof of Lhe accldenL wlll glve rlse Lo Lhe sLaLuLory
presumpLlon only where some connecLlon appears beLween Lhe accldenL and Lhe employmenL.
Llkewlse of relevance ls Lhe followlng LreaLlse:
1he dlscusslon of Lhe coverage formula, "arlslng ouL of and ln Lhe course of employmenL," was opened wlLh Lhe
suggesLlon LhaL, whlle "course" and "arlslng" were puL under separaLe headlngs for convenlence, some lnLerplay beLween
Lhe Lwo facLors should be observed ln Lhe varlous caLegorles dlscussed.
A few examples may now be revlewed Lo show LhaL Lhe Lwo LesLs, ln pracLlce, have noL been kepL ln alr-LlghL
comparLmenLs, buL have Lo some exLenL merged lnLo a slngle concepL of work-connecLlon. Cne ls almosL LempLed Lo
formulaLe a sorL of quanLum Lheory of work-connecLlon: LhaL a cerLaln mlnlmum quanLum of work-connecLlon musL be
shown, and lf Lhe "course" quanLlLy ls very small, buL Lhe "arlslng" quanLlLy ls large, Lhe quanLum wlll add up Lo Lhe
necessary mlnlmum, as lL wlll also when Lhe "arlslng" quanLlLy ls very small buL Lhe "course" quanLlLy ls relaLlvely large.
8uL lf boLh Lhe "course" and "arlslng" quanLlLles are small, Lhe mlnlmum quanLum wlll noL be meL.
As an example of Lhe flrsL, a sLrong "arlslng" facLor buL weak "course" facLor, one may clLe Lhe cases ln whlch recoverles
have been allowed off Lhe employmenL premlses, ouLslde buslness hours, when an employee golng Lo or comlng from
work ls ln[ured by a hazard dlsLlncLly Lraceable Lo Lhe employmenL, such as a Lrafflc [am overflowlng from Lhe
employmenL premlses, or a rock flylng Lhrough Lhe alr from a blasL on Lhe premlses. Pere, by normal course of
employmenL sLandards, Lhere would be no award, slnce Lhe employee was noL on Lhe premlses whlle comlng or golng.
?eL Lhe oomlstokoble cbotoctet of Lhe causal relaLlon of Lhe ln[ury Lo Lhe employmenL has been sufflclenL Lo make up for
Lhe weakness of Lhe "course" facLor. AnoLher example of Lhe same klnd of balanclng-ouL ls seen ln Lhe llne of cases
deallng wlLh ln[ury Lo Lravelllng men or loggers whlle sleeplng ln hoLels or bunkhouses. lL was shown ln Lhe analysls of
Lhese cases LhaL, alLhough Lhe "course" facLor ls on Lhe borderllne when Lhe employee ls sound asleep aL Lhe Llme of
ln[ury, a sLrong causal relaLlon of Lhe ln[ury Lo Lhe condlLlons of employmenL - as where a fellow-logger runs amok, or a
sLraw falls lnLo Lhe bunkhouse-lnmaLe's LhroaL from Lhe maLLress above, or Lhe employee ls Lrapped ln a burnlng hoLel -
wlll boosL Lhe case over Lhe llne Lo success, whlle a weak causal connecLlon, as where Lhe salesman merely sllps ln a hoLel
baLh, coupled wlLh a weak "course" facLor due Lo Lhe absence of any dlrecL servlce performed for Lhe employer aL Lhe
Llme, wlll under presenL declslons add up Lo a quanLum of work-connecLlon Loo small Lo supporL an award. lL was also
shown LhaL when Lhe "course" elemenL ls sLrengLhened by Lhe facL LhaL Lhe employee ls aL all Llmes on call, Lhe range of
compensable sources of ln[ury ls broader Lhan when Lhe employee, alLhough llvlng on Lhe premlses ls noL on call.
A somewhaL slmllar balanclng-ouL process ls seen ln Lhe holdlng LhaL a borderllne course-of-employmenL acLlvlLy llke
seeklng personal comforL or golng Lo and from work falls shorL of compensablllLy lf Lhe meLhod adopLed ls unusual,
unreasonable and dangerous, whlle no such resLrlcLlon applles Lo Lhe dlrecL performance of Lhe work.
As an example of Lhe reverse slLuaLlon, a sLrong "course" elemenL and a weak "arlslng" elemenL, one may recall Lhe
"poslLlonal" cases dlscussed ln secLlon 10, as well as Lhe unexplalned-fall and oLher "neuLral-cause" cases. Pere Lhe
course of employmenL LesL ls saLlsfled beyond Lhe sllghLesL doubL: Lhe employee ls ln Lhe mldsL of performlng Lhe acLlve
duLles of hls [ob. 8uL Lhe causal connecLlon ls very weak, slnce Lhe source of Lhe ln[ury - wheLher a sLray bulleL, a
wanderlng lunaLlc, and unexplalned fall or deaLh, or a mlsLaken assaulL by a sLranger - ls noL dlsLlncLly assoclaLed wlLh
employmenL condlLlons as such, and ls Lled Lo Lhe employmenL only by Lhe argumenL LhaL Lhe ln[ury would noL have
occurred Lo Lhls employee buL for Lhe obllgaLlon of Lhe employmenL whlch placed hlm ln Lhe poslLlon Lo be hurL. ?eL,
slnce Lhe "course" elemenL ls so sLrong, awards are becomlng lncreaslngly common on Lhese facLs.
lncldenLally, lL may be observed LhaL Lhls "quanLum" ldea forms a useful yardsLlck for measurlng [usL how generous a
courL has become ln expandlng compensaLlon coverage, for lf a courL makes an award when a case, by Lhe above
sLandards, ls weak boLh on course of employmenL and on causal connecLlon, one can conclude LhaL Lhe courL ls capable
of glvlng Lhe acL a broad consLrucLlon. 1hus, an award was made ln uffln v. Ceneral LlecLrlc, where Lhe course elemenL
was weak (resL perlod) and Lhe causal elemenL was weak (seLLlng flre Lo own sweaLer whlle smoklng). 8oLh facLors were
llkewlse very weak ln C'Leary v. 8rown aclflc-Maxon lnc., where Lhe course of employmenL conslsLed of a recreaLlon
perlod lnLerrupLed by a rescue of a sLranger, and Lhe arlslng facLor conslsLed of drownlng ln a channel where decedenL
was prohlblLed from golng. And, ln MarLln v. lauL, Lhe course of employmenL facLor was weak (a cook dresslng ln Lhe
mornlng) and Lhe causal facLor was also weak (an unexplalned fall), yeL an award was made ln new ?ork.
8uL anoLher new ?ork case shows LhaL Lhe slmulLaneous weakness of course and arlslng facLors may reach Lhe polnL
where Lhe requlslLe quanLum ls noL found. ln ShulLz v. naLlon AssoclaLes, compensaLlon was denled Lo an employee who
whlle comblng her halr preparaLory Lo golng Lo lunch negllgenLly sLruck her eye wlLh Lhe comb. Pere we see Lhlnness on
all fronLs: as Lo course of employmenL Llme facLor, we have a lunch perlod, as Lo Lhe course of employmenL acLlvlLy
facLor, we have care of personal appearance, and as Lo Lhe causal facLor, we have negllgence of Lhe employee. Lach
weakness sLandlng alone - lunch perlod, care of appearance, negllgence - would noL be faLal, Lhere are many awards ln
whlch one or anoLher of Lhese ls presenL. 8uL when all are presenL, whlle an award ls noL lmposslble and could be
defended on a polnL by polnL basls, lL cannoL be relled upon ln mosL [urlsdlcLlons by Lhe prudenL lawyer.
Larson's wotkmeo's compeosotloo low 1963 ed. vol. 1, pp. 432.97 Lo 432.100.
lo tesome.
1. Workmen's compensaLlon ls granLed lf Lhe ln[urles resulL from an accldenL whlch arlse ouL of and ln Lhe course of
2. 8oLh Lhe "arlslng" facLor and Lhe "course" facLor musL be presenL. lf one facLor ls weak and Lhe oLher ls sLrong, Lhe
ln[ury ls compensable, buL noL where boLh facLors are weak. ulLlmaLely, Lhe quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe accldenL ls work-
3. ln a proceedlng for Lhe enforcemenL of a clalm, Lhe same ls presumed Lo come wlLhln Lhe provlslons of Lhe Workmen's
CompensaLlon AcL. 8uL a prellmlnary llnk musL flrsL be shown Lo exlsL beLween Lhe ln[ury and Lhe employmenL.
1hus lf Lhe ln[ury occurred ln Lhe cootse of employmenL, lL ls presumed Lo have otlseo ouL of Lhe employmenL.
4. 1he "course" facLor applles Lo Llme, place and clrcumsLances. 1hls facLor ls presenL lf Lhe ln[ury Lakes place wlLhln Lhe
perlod of employmenL, aL a place where Lhe employee may be, and whlle he ls fulfllllng hls duLles or ls engaged ln dolng
someLhlng lncldenLal LhereLo.
3. 1he rule ls LhaL an ln[ury susLalned whlle Lhe employee goes Lo or comes from hls place of work, ls noL of Lhe
6. 1he excepLlon Lo Lhe rule ls an ln[ury susLalned off Lhe employee's premlses, buL whlle ln close proxlmlLy LhereLo and
whlle uslng a cusLomary means of lngress and egress. 1he reason for exLendlng Lhe scope of "course of employmenL" Lo
off-premlses ln[urles ls LhaL Lhere ls a causal connecLlon beLween Lhe work and Lhe hazard.
7. An "assaulL" may be consldered an "accldenL" wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL. 1he
employmenL may elLher lncrease rlsk of assaulL because of lLs naLure or be Lhe sub[ecL-maLLer of a dlspuLe leadlng Lo Lhe
lrom Lhe mllesLones, we now proceed Lo Lake our bearlngs ln Lhe case aL bar, havlng ln mlnd always LhaL no cover-all formula can be
spelled ouL wlLh speclflclLy, LhaL Lhe parLlcular facLs and clrcumsLances of each case musL be lnqulred lnLo, and LhaL ln any percepLlve
lnqulry, Lhe quesLlon as Lo where Lhe llne should be drawn beyond whlch Lhe llablllLy of Lhe employer cannoL conLlnue has been held
Lo be usually one of facL.
We shall flrsL dwell on Lhe quesLlon of ownershlp of Lhe prlvaLe road where ablo was kllled. ln granLlng compensaLlon, Lhe
Commlsslon sald LhaL "Lhe road where Lhe deceased was shoL was of prlvaLe ownershlp, was called Lhe luLCC road, and led sLralghL
Lo Lhe maln luLCC gaLe, Lhus ralslng Lhe reasonable assumpLlon LhaL lL belonged" Lo Lhe luLCC. 1he Commlsslon reasoned ouL LhaL
"even lf Lhe ownershlp of Lhe road were open Lo quesLlon, Lhere was no doubL LhaL lLs prlvaLe characLer was obvlously explolLed by
Lhe respondenL for Lhe purpose of lLs own buslness Lo such an exLenL as Lo make lL Lo all lnLenLs and purposes an exLenslon of lLs
premlses," so LhaL Lhe "shooLlng of Lhe deceased may be consldered Lo have Laken place on Lhe premlses, and Lherefore wlLhln Lhe
employmenL," and LhaL "whlle respondenL allowed lLs name Lo be used ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe prlvaLe road for Lhe lngress and
egress of Lhe employees lL dld noL apparenLly Lake Lhe necessary precauLlon Lo make lL safe for lLs employees by employlng securlLy
8uL Lhe luLCC denles ownershlp of Lhe road. ln lLs memorandum flled wlLh Lhe 8eglonal Cfflce, luLCC averred LhaL ablo's deaLh dld
noL orlglnaLe from hls work as Lo Llme, place and clrcumsLances. 1hls, ln effecL, ls a denlal of ownershlp of Lhe road. 1he declslon of
Lhe 8eglonal Cfflce does noL sLaLe LhaL Lhe road belongs Lo Lhe luLCC. All LhaL lL says ls LhaL ablo was shoL "barely Lwo mlnuLes
afLer he was dlsmlssed from work and whlle walklng along Lhe luLCC road abouL LwenLy (20) meLers from Lhe gaLe." ln lLs "moLlon
for reconslderaLlon and/or revlew," Lhe luLCC emphaslzed LhaL "Lhe place where Lhe lncldenL happened was a publlc road, noL less
Lhan LwenLy (20) meLers away from Lhe maln gaLe of Lhe compound, and Lherefore noL proxlmaLe Lo or ln Lhe lmmedlaLe vlclnlLy of
Lhe place of work." Agaln, Lhe ownershlp of Lhe road was lmpllclLly denled. And ln lLs "moLlon for reconslderaLlon and/or appeal Lo
Lhe Commlsslon eo booc," Lhe luLCC alleged ouLrlghL LhaL Lhe "road where Lhe lncldenL Look place, alLhough of prlvaLe ownershlp,
does noL belong Lo luLCC. 1here ls absoluLely no evldence on record LhaL shows luLCC owns Lhe road." lf Lhe road were owned by
Lhe luLCC, Lhere would have been no quesLlon LhaL Lhe assaulL arose "ln Lhe course of employmenL."
8uL lf lL dld lndeed own Lhe
road, Lhen Lhe luLCC would have fenced lL, and place lLs maln gaLe aL Lhe oLher end of Lhe road where lL meeLs Lhe publlc hlghway.
8uL whlle Lhe luLCC does noL own Lhe prlvaLe road, lL cannoL be denled LhaL lL was uslng Lhe same as Lhe prlnclpal means of lngress
and egress. 1he prlvaLe road leads dlrecLly Lo lLs maln gaLe.
lLs rlghL Lo use Lhe road musL Lhen perforce proceed from elLher an
easemenL of rlghL of way or a lease. lLs rlghL, Lherefore, ls elLher a legal one or a conLracLual one. ln elLher case Lhe luLCC should
loglcally and properly be charged wlLh securlLy conLrol of Lhe road. 1he luLCC owed lLs employees a safe passage Lo lLs premlses. ln
compllance wlLh such duLy, Lhe luLCC should have seen Lo lL noL only LhaL road was properly paved and dld noL have holes or
dlLches, buL should also have lnsLlLuLed measures for Lhe proper pollclng of Lhe lmmedlaLe area. 1he polnL where ablo was shoL
was barely LwenLy meLers away from Lhe maln luLCC gaLe, cerLalnly nearer Lhan a sLone's Lhrow Lherefrom. 1he spoL ls lmmedlaLely
proxlmaLe Lo Lhe luLCC's premlses. Conslderlng Lhls facL, and Lhe furLher facLs LhaL ablo had [usL flnlshed overLlme work aL Lhe
Llme, and was kllled barely Lwo mlnuLes afLer dlsmlssal from work, Lhe Ampll case ls squarely appllcable here. We may say, as we dld
ln Ampll, LhaL Lhe place where Lhe employee was ln[ured belng "lmmedlaLely proxlmaLe Lo hls place of work, Lhe accldenL ln
quesLlon musL be deemed Lo have occurred wlLhln Lhe zone of hls employmenL and Lherefore arose ouL of and ln Lhe course
Lhereof." Cur prlnclpal quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe ln[ury was susLalned ln Lhe cootse of employmenL. We flnd LhaL lL was, and so
conclude LhaL Lhe assaulL arose ouL of Lhe employmenL, even Lhough Lhe sald assaulL ls unexplalned.
Amerlcan [urlsprudence supporLs Lhls vlew.
ln 8oootlfol 8tlck compooy vs. Clles,
Lhe u.S. Supreme CourL ruled:
LmploymenL lncludes boLh only Lhe acLual dolng of Lhe work, buL a reasonable margln of Llme and space necessary Lo be
used ln passlng Lo and from Lhe place where Lhe work ls Lo be done. lf Lhe employee Lo be ln[ured whlle passlng, wlLh Lhe
express or lmplled consenL of Lhe employer, Lo or from hls work by a way over Lhe employer's premlses, ot ovet tbose of
oootbet lo socb ptoxlmlty ooJ telotloo os to be lo ptoctlcol effect o pott of tbe employet's ptemlses, Lhe ln[ury ls one
arlslng ouL of and ln Lhe course of employmenL as much as Lhough lL had happened whlle Lhe employee was engaged ln
hls work aL Lhe place of lLs performance. ln oLher words, Lhe employmenL may begln ln polnL of Llme before Lhe work ls
enLered upon and ln polnL of space before Lhe place where Lhe work ls Lo be done ls reached. robably, as a general rule,
employmenL may be sald Lo begln when Lhe employee reaches Lhe enLrance Lo Lhe employer's premlses where Lhe work
ls Lo be done, buL lt ls cleot tbot lo some coses tbe tole exteoJs to locloJe oJjoceot ptemlses oseJ by tbe employee os o
meoos of loqtess ooJ eqtess wltb tbe exptess ot lmplleJ cooseot of tbe employet.
1he above rullng ls on all fours wlLh our facLs. 1wo mlnuLes from dlsmlssal and LwenLy meLers from Lhe maln luLCC gaLe are "a
reasonable margln of Llme and space necessary Lo be used ln passlng Lo and from" Lhe luLCC's premlses. 1he luLCC employees used
Lhe prlvaLe road wlLh lLs consenL, express or lmplled. 1wenLy meLers on LhaL road from Lhe maln gaLe ls ln close proxlmlLy Lo Lhe
luLCC's premlses. lL follows LhaL ablo's deaLh was ln Lhe course of employmenL.
ln cottet vs. loozetto,
lL was held LhaL "such sLaLuLes envlslon exLenslon of coverage Lo employees from Lhe Llme Lhey reach Lhe
employer's premlses unLll Lhey deparL Lherefrom and LhaL hours of servlce lnclude a perlod when Lhls mlghL be accompllshed wlLhln
a reasonable lnLerval," and LhaL "under excepLlonal clrcumsLances, a conLlnuance of Lhe course of employmenL may be exLended by
allowlng Lhe employee a reasonable Llme noL only Lo enLer or leave Lhe premlses buL also Lo surmounL cerLaln hazards ad[acenL
1he prlvaLe road led dlrecLly Lo Lhe maln luLCC gaLe. lrom Lhls descrlpLlon, lL would appear LhaL Lhe road ls a dead-end sLreeL.
ln 5loqet vs. klcb Motloe 5oles,
lL was held LhaL, where Lhe employee, whlle reLurnlng Lo work aL Lhe end of Lhe lunch perlod, fell aL
Lhe curb of Lhe sldewalk lmmedlaLely ad[acenL Lo Lhe employer's premlses and one oLher locaLed Lhereon, and Lhe general publlc
used Lhe sLreeL only ln connecLlon wlLh Lhose premlses, and Lhe employer acLually sLored boaLs on Lhe sldewalk, Lhe sldewalk was
wlLhln Lhe preclncLs of employmenL. ln LhaL case Lhere were even Lwo buslness esLabllshmenLs on Lhe dead-end sLreeL. Pere, lL ls
excluslvely Lhe luLCC premlses whlch appear Lo be aL Lhe end of Lhe prlvaLe road.
We flnd ln Ieoo vs. cbtyslet cotpototloo
a meanlngful sLaLemenL of Lhe obllgaLlon of Lhe employer Lo lLs employees: "1haL Lhe
employer owes, so Lo speak, a duLy of 'safe passage' Lo an employee Lo Lhe polnL where he can reach Lhe proper arrlval or deparLure
from hls work seems wlLhouL quesLlon."
We nexL quoLe exLenslvely from kelty vs. 1tovellets losotooce compooy:

1he rule has been repeaLedly announced ln 1exas LhaL an ln[ury recelved by an employee whlle uslng Lhe publlc sLreeLs
and hlghways ln golng Lo or reLurnlng from Lhe place of employmenL ls noL compensable, Lhe raLlonale of Lhe rule belng
LhaL ln mosL lnsLances such an ln[ury ls suffered as a consequence of rlsk and hazards Lo whlch all members of Lhe
Lravelllng publlc are sub[ecL raLher Lhan rlsk and hazards havlng Lo do wlLh and orlglnaLlng ln Lhe work or buslness of Lhe
AnoLher excepLlon, however, whlch ls appllcable ls found ln Lhe so-called "access" cases. ln Lhese cases a workman who
has been ln[ured aL a plane lnLended by Lhe employer for use as a means of lngress or egress Lo and from Lhe acLual place
of Lhe employee's work has been held Lo be ln Lhe course of hls employmenL. 1he courLs have sald LhaL Lhese access
areas are so closely relaLed Lo Lhe employer's premlses as Lo be falrly LreaLed as a parL of Lhe employer's premlses. We
shall dlscuss Lhe prlnclpal auLhorlLles deallng wlLh Lhls excepLlon Lo Lhe general rule.
1he leadlng cases ln 1exas deallng wlLh Lhe "access" excepLlon, and one whlch we Lhlnk ls conLrolllng of Lhls appeal, ls
Lumberman's 8eclprocal Ass'n v. 8ehnken, 112 1ex. 103, 246 S.W. 72, 28 A.L.8. 1402. ln LhaL case Lhe employee was
employed by ParLburg Lumber Company, whlch company operaLed and owned a sawmlll ln ParLburg, 1exas, whlch was a
lumber Lown, conslsLlng solely of Lhe employer's faclllLles. A rallroad Lrack ran Lhrough Lhe Lown and a parL of Lhe lumber
company's faclllLles was slLuaLed on elLher slde of Lhe rlghL-of-way. A publlc road ran parallel Lo Lhe rallroad Lracks whlch
led Lo Lhe varlous bulldlngs on Lhe properLy of Lhe lumber company. 1hls crosslng was used by any member of Lhe publlc
deslrlng Lo go Lo any parL of Lhe lumber company faclllLles. Cn Lhe day ln quesLlon Lhe decedenL qulL work aL noon, wenL
home for lunch and whlle reLurnlng Lo Lhe lumber company planL for Lhe purpose of resumlng hls employmenL, was
sLruck and kllled by a Lraln aL Lhe crosslng ln quesLlon. 1he lnsurance company conLended (as lL does here) LhaL Lhe
decedenL's deaLh dld noL orlglnaLe ln Lhe work or buslness of hls employer and LhaL aL Lhe Llme of hls faLal ln[urles he was
noL ln or abouL Lhe furLherance of Lhe affalrs or buslness of hls employer. 1he Supreme CourL, ln an exLenslve oplnlon,
revlewed Lhe auLhorlLles from oLher sLaLes and especlally LaLLer's Case 238 Mass. 326, 130 n. L. 637, 638, and arrlved aL
Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe ln[ury and deaLh under such clrcumsLances were compensable under Lhe 1exas AcL. 1he courL
held LhaL Lhe rallroad crosslng bote so lotlmote o telotloo to tbe lombet compooy's ptemlses tbot lt coolJ botJly be
tteoteJ otbetwlse tboo os o pott of tbe ptemlses. 1he CourL polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe lumber company had rlghLs ln and Lo Lhe
crosslng whlch was used ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe lumber company's buslness, wheLher by employees or by members of
Lhe publlc. ln announclng Lhe "access" docLrlne !usLlce Creenwood sald:
Was 8ehnken engaged ln or abouL Lhe furLherance of Lhe affalrs or buslness of hls employer when he recelved
Lhe ln[ury causlng hls deaLh? Pe was upon Lhe crosslng provlded as Lhe means of access Lo hls work solely
because he was an employee. Pe encounLered Lhe dangers lncldenL Lo use of Lhe crosslng ln order LhaL he
mlghL perform Lhe duLles lmposed by hls conLracL of servlce. WlLhouL sub[ecLlng hlmself Lo such dangers he
could noL do whaL was requlred of hlm ln Lhe conducL of Lhe lumber company's buslness. Pe had reached a
place provlded and used only as an ad[uncL Lo LhaL buslness, and was ln[ured from a rlsk creaLed by Lhe
condlLlons under whlch Lhe buslness was carrled on. 1o hold LhaL he was noL acLlng ln furLherance of Lhe
affalrs or buslness of Lhe lumber company would be Lo glve a sLrlcL lnLerpreLaLlon Lo Lhls remedlal sLaLuLe,
whlch should be llberally consLrued wlLh a vlew Lo accompllsh lLs purpose and Lo promoLe [usLlce.
xxx xxx xxx
ln 1exas Lmployer's lns. Ass'n v. Anderson, 1ex. Clv. App., 123 S. W. 2d 674, wr. ref., Lhls courL followed Lhe rule
announced ln 8ehnken, supra. ln LhaL case Lhe employee was kllled whlle crosslng Lhe rallroad Lrack near hls place of
employmenL. ln dlscusslng Lhe quesLlon of Lhe slLus of Lhe ln[ury !usLlce Looney sald:
lts ose os o meoos of loqtess to ooJ exlt ftom bls ploce of wotk oot ooly cooJoceJ bls sofety ooJ cooveoleoce,
bot coottlboteJ to tbe ptomptoess ooJ efflcleocy wltb wblcb be wos eoobleJ to Jlscbotqe tbe Jotles owloq bls
employet, hence Lhe reason and necesslLy for hls presence upon Lhe rallroad Lrack (LhaL porLlon of Lhe
paLhway leadlng over Lhe rallroad rlghL of way) when ln[ured, ln our oplnlon, had Lo do wlLh, orlglnaLed ln and
grew ouL of Lhe work of Lhe employer, and LhaL, Lhe ln[ury recelved aL Lhe Llme, place and under Lhe
clrcumsLances, necessarlly was ln furLherance of Lhe affalrs or buslness of Lhe employer.
Agaln, ln 1exas Lmployers' lns. Ass'n v. 8oecker, 1ex. Clv. App. 33 S. W. 2d 327, err. ref., Lhls courL had occaslon Lo follow
Lhe "access" docLrlne. ln LhaL case Chlef !usLlce !ones quoLed from Lhe Supreme CourL of Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln Lhe case of
8ounLlful 8rlsk Company, eL al. v. Clles, 276 u.S. 134, 48 S. CL. 221, 72 L. Ld. 307, 66 A. L. 8. 1402, as follows:
Ao employmeot locloJes oot ooly tbe octool Joloq of tbe wotk, bot o teosoooble motqlo of tlme ooJ spoce
oecessoty to be oseJ lo possloq to ooJ ftom tbe ploce wbete tbe wotk ls to be Jooe. lf Lhe employee be ln[ured
whlle passlng, wlLh Lhe express or lmplled consenL of Lhe employer, Lo or from hls work by a way over Lhe
employer's premlses, or over Lhose of anoLher ln such proxlmlLy and relaLlon as Lo be ln pracLlcal effecL a parL
of Lhe employer's premlses, Lhe ln[ury ls one arlslng ouL of and ln Lhe course of Lhe employmenL as much as
Lhough lL had happened whlle Lhe employee was engaged ln hls work aL Lhe place of lLs performance. ln oLher
words, tbe employmeot moy beqlo lo polot of tlme befote tbe wotk ls eoteteJ opoo ooJ lo polot of spoce
befote tbe ploce wbete tbe wotk ls to be Jooe ls teocbeJ.
1he rullng enunclaLed above ls appllcable ln Lhe case aL bar. 1haL parL of Lhe road where ablo was kllled ls ln very close proxlmlLy Lo
Lhe employer's premlses. lL ls an "access area" "so clearly relaLed Lo Lhe employer's premlses as Lo be falrly LreaLed as a parL of Lhe
employer's premlses." 1haL porLlon of Lhe road bears "so lnLlmaLe a relaLlon" Lo Lhe company's premlses. lL ls Lhe chlef means of
enLerlng Lhe luLCC premlses, elLher for Lhe publlc or for lLs employees. 1he luLCC uses lL exLenslvely ln pursulL of lLs buslness. lL has
rlghLs of passage over Lhe road, elLher legal, lf by vlrLue of easemenL, or conLracLual, lf by reason of lease. ablo was uslng Lhe road
as a means of access Lo hls work solely because he was an employee. lor Lhls reason, Lhe luLCC was under obllgaLlon Lo keep Lhe
place safe for lLs employees. Safe, LhaL ls, agalnsL dangers LhaL Lhe employees mlghL encounLer Lhereln, one of Lhese dangers belng
assaulL by Lhlrd persons. Pavlng falled Lo Lake Lhe proper securlLy measures over Lhe sald area whlch lL conLrols, Lhe luLCC ls llable
for Lhe ln[urles suffered by ablo resulLlng ln hls deaLh.
As Lherefore sLaLed, Lhe assaulL on ablo ls unexplalned. 1he murderer was hlmself kllled before he could be broughL Lo Lrlal. lL ls
Lrue Lhere ls auLhorlLy for Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL before Lhe "proxlmlLy" rule may be applled lL musL flrsL be shown LhaL Lhere ls a causal
connecLlon beLween Lhe employmenL and Lhe hazard whlch resulLed ln Lhe ln[ury.
1he followlng more modern vlew was expressed
ln lewls wooJ ltesetvloq compooy vs. Iooes:

Whlle some earller cases seem Lo lndlcaLe LhaL Lhe causaLlve danger musL be pecullar Lo Lhe work and noL common Lo Lhe
nelghborhood for Lhe ln[urles Lo arlse ouL of and ln Lhe course of Lhe employmenL (see Maryland CasualLy Co. v. eek, 36
Ca. App. 337 [137 S.L. 121], ParLford AccldenL and lndemnlLy Co. v. Cox, 61 Ca. App. 420, 6 S.L. 2d 189), laLer cases have
been somewhaL more llberal, saylng LhaL, "Lo be compensable, ln[urles do noL have Lo arlse from someLhlng pecullar Lo
Lhe employmenL." lldellLy & CasualLy Co. of n.?. v. 8ardon, 79 Ca. App. 260, 262, 34 S.L. 2d 443, 444. "Where Lhe duLles
of an employee enLall hls presence (aL a place and a Llme) Lhe clalm for an ln[ury Lhere occurrlng ls noL Lo be barred
because lL resulLs from a rlsk common Lo all oLhers ... unless lL ls also common Lo Lhe general publlc wlLhouL regard Lo
such condlLlons, and lndependenLly of place, employmenL, or pursulL." new AmsLerdam CasualLy Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ca.
App. 682, 118 S.L. 786, clLed ln Clobe lndemnlLy Co. v. Mackendree, 39 Ca. App. 38, 146 S.L. 46, 47, Mcklney v. 8eynolds
& Manley Lumber Co., 79 Ca. App. 826, 829, 34 S.L. 2d 471, 473.
8uL even wlLhouL Lhe foregolng pronouncemenL, Lhe employer should sLlll be held llable ln vlew of our concluslon LhaL LhaL porLlon
of Lhe road where ablo was kllled, because of lLs proxlmlLy, should be consldered parL of Lhe luLCC's premlses. Pence, Lhe ln[ury
was ln Lhe cootse of employmenL, and Lhere auLomaLlcally arlses Lhe presumpLlon - lnvoked ln klveto - LhaL Lhe ln[ury by assaulL
arose ouL of Lhe employmenL, l. e., Lhere ls a causal relaLlon beLween Lhe assaulL and Lhe employmenL.
We do say here LhaL Lhe clrcumsLances of Llme, Lwo mlnuLes afLer dlsmlssal from overLlme work, and space, LwenLy meLers from Lhe
employer's maln gaLe, brlng ablo's deaLh wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe cootse facLor. 8uL lL may loglcally be asked: Suppose lL were Lhree
mlnuLes afLer and LhlrLy meLers from, or flve mlnuLes afLer and flfLy meLers from, would Lhe "proxlmlLy" rule sLlll apply? ln answer,
we need buL quoLe LhaL porLlon of Lhe declslon lnIeoo vs. cbtyslet cotpototloo, sopto, whlch answered a quesLlon arlslng from an
lngenlous hypoLheLlcal quesLlon puL forLh by Lhe defendanL Lhereln:
We could, of course, say "Lhls ls noL Lhe case before us" and uLlllze Lhe old saw, "LhaL whlch ls noL before us we do noL
declde." lnsLead, we prefer Lo uLlllze Lhe conslderably older law: "SufflclenL unLo Lhe day ls Lhe evll Lhereof" (MaLLhew
1:34), appendlng, however, Lhls admonlLlon: no sLaLuLe ls sLaLlc, lL musL remaln consLanLly vlable Lo meeL new challenges
placed Lo lL. 8ecovery ln a proper case should noL be suppressed because of a con[ecLural posLure whlch may never arlse
and whlch lf lL does, wlll be declded ln Lhe llghL of Lhen exlsLlng law.
Slnce Lhe Workmen's CompensaLlon AcL ls baslcally a soclal leglslaLlon deslgned Lo afford rellef Lo workmen, lL musL be llberally
consLrued Lo aLLaln Lhe purpose for whlch lL was enacLed.
Llberally consLrued, sec. 2 of Lhe AcL comprehends ablo's deaLh. 1he
Commlsslon dld noL err ln granLlng compensaLlon.
ACCC8ulnCL?, Lhe declslon appealed from ls afflrmed, aL peLlLloner's cosL.
coocepcloo, c.I., keyes, I.8.l., ulzoo, 2olJlvot, 5oocbez, letoooJo ooJ coplsttooo, II., concur.
Mokollotol, I., reserves hls voLe.