Wiley v. SAIF Corporation

Workers’ compensation coverage may extend where employer-endorsed parking creates a greater hazard

Claimant sought judicial review after the Workers’ Compensation Board upheld SAIF and employer’s denial of benefits for injuries sustained when claimant was struck by a car while jaywalking across a busy four-lane public road from an overflow parking area to work. The Board applied the “going and coming” rule and rejected the “parking lot” and “greater hazard” exceptions.
The Court of Appeals agreed the parking-lot exception did not apply because employer did not control the lot or the road. However, the Court held the Board failed to resolve two material factual questions necessary to apply the “greater hazard” exception: (1) whether, given the shortage of on-site spaces and employer’s endorsement of an overflow arrangement, claimant was effectively required to park across the road on the day of injury; and (2) whether employer directed claimant to jaywalk rather than use a distant crosswalk which exposed him to a risk greater than that faced by the general public. The Court remanded for the Board to address those questions, while reaffirming the general contours of the “going and coming” rule and its exceptions. REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration.