Do You Know the Rule?
To be compensable, an injury must occur in the course and scope of employment and arise out of employment. ’Under the street-risk rule, an injury that occurs while an employee is driving arises out of employment only if:
- The employee’s duties require his presence on public streets; and
- The injury was caused by a risk inherent to traveling on streets.
To recover under the street-risk rule, there must be a connection between work and using the road.
What categories of employees are covered by the rule?
- Employees sent on a special mission: The employer sends the employee on a special errand, such as to pick up a tool at a hardware store.
- Traveling employees: The employee is traveling out of town on a business trip. This includes whe, the employee is out of town on business and driving to a hotel or restaurant.
- Employees who travel as a job duty: Travel is a job duty for the employee, such as is the case for a home health nurses and truck drivers.
What is the ‘distinct departure’ rule?
The activity of an employee who falls under one of the above three categories is no longer covered by the street risk rule, and the resulting injury does not arise out of employment, if the employee makes a “distinct departure” for personal reasons.
An example of such a departure is where a person on a business trip departs from his route by 30 miles to see a national park and collides with another car in the parking lot. If that same employee simply stops along his route or somewhere nearby to get lunch, that is likely not a “distinct departure.”
When does the street risk rule not apply?
In general, the rule does not apply when:
- The employee is driving somewhere for purely personal reasons.
- The employee is merely commuting work.
- The driving is not connected to the employee’s job duties.
What are some case examples?
An ADT patrol officer fell asleep while responding to a call. He hit a car in front of him, causing the airbags to deploy. He sought workers’ compensation benefits for his head and leg injuries.A hearing officer denied the claim on the basis that the injuries did not arise out of employment. The claimant challenged the denial, claiming his injuries fell under the “street-risk rule.” Falling asleep behind the wheel should not be deemed a risk inherent to the streets and highways, the court said, but instead should be treated as a nonindustrial risk analogous to a medical condition. Further, this was not a case where the claimant pointed to some actual risk of the road as causing the accident. Had he, for example, established that he fell asleep due to some condition of employment, such as overly long hours, he might have had a compensable claim. The court affirmed the denial of the claim on the basis that it did not arise out of the patrol officer’s job. Bright v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 89262-COA (Nev. Ct. App. 12/18/25
A limo driver lost control of his vehicle, crossed a median, and collided with oncoming traffic. He sustained catastrophic injuries, including an aortic dissection and traumatic brain injury, and died at the hospital. Since his job required him to be on public roads, the hazards of driving were risks of his employment. Even if a personal health condition contributed to the crash, the claim was compensable if the employment (driving on the highway) was also a contributing factor to the death. Because the employee’s job was a contributing factor, the court ruled that the driver’s spouse was entitled to death benefits. On-Demand Sedan v. Valdes, No. 84586-COA (Nev. Ct. App. 04/20/23).
Get compliance knowledge from Nevada and the rest of the U.S. with Simply Research.
