Guest v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

[672]

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Petitioner seeks annulment of a decision after reconsideration by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, which held that by reason of the going and coming rule petitioner’s injury was not compensable.

Facts:

Petitioner is a policeman employed by the Pomona Police Department. He usually dresses on the job and has a locker at the police station for that purpose. He has two uniforms, one of which he keeps in his locker at work and the other at home.

Petitioner was assigned to perform official duties at the 1968 Los Angeles County Fair. He was instructed to go directly to the fairgrounds each day and not report to the police station first. On September 13, 1968, the opening day for the fair, petitioner, not knowing of any facilities for changing into his uniform at the fairgrounds, put on his full uniform at home and started to drive to the fairgrounds in a car he had borrowed from his brother. While on a direct route between his home and the fairgrounds, he was injured in an automobile accident.

Following an award of benefits to petitioner, the city and the insurance carrier petitioned for reconsideration, which was granted, respondent appeals board holding that petitioner’s claim was barred by the going and coming rule.

Question:

Is petitioner’s claim barred by the going and coming rule?

No.

Although ordinarily an injury which occurs while an employee is driving to or from work is not compensable by reason of the going and coming rule, the rule is subject to many exceptions.

(Garzoli

v.

Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., ante,

pp. 502, 505 [86 Cal.Rptr. 1, 467 P.2d 833].) Petitioner contends that he comes within the “special mission” exception to the rule. The relevant question in this regard is whether petitioner’s assignment to serve at the fair was “special” or “extraordinary in relation to routine duties”