What Do You Think?
The exclusivity rule protects employers from negligence and other tort lawsuits only to the extent that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. A recent case involving a Taco Bell team member who was tragically killed while sitting on a parking lot curb considers what factors might show that an injury during a break is or is not work-related.
The employee went to the restaurant’s parking lot during his unpaid, 30-minute meal break. Allegedly, the restaurant was in a dangerous area and the restaurant had taken few measures to protect staff. A man loitering in the area approached the employee and stabbed him to death.
The employee’s parents sued Taco Bell for wrongful death, claiming it negligently failed to protect its employees. Taco Bell argued that the lawsuit was barred by the workers’ compensation act’s exclusive remedy rule.
Under the exclusive remedy rule, workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for an employee’s injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment.
Under the premises line rule, an employee generally is in the course of employment once he enters his employer’s premises and continues to be in the course of employment until he leaves the premises.
Was the Taco Bell worker in the course of employment when he was murdered?
A. Yes. His personal break in the parking lot did not remove him from the course of employment.
B. No. He was not in the restaurant and he was not working or being paid when he was attacked.
If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Wrenne v. J.A. Sutherland, Inc., No. C102531 (Cal. Ct. App. 06/02/26, unpublished), which concluded that the exclusive remedy rule prevented the parents from suing.
The court pointed out that a parking lot is generally considered to be part of an employer’s premises. Thus, the worker in this case never left the premises.
It also rejected the parents’ contention that they could sue because the injury was not caused solely by their son’s job but by unsafe work conditions. An injured worker’s employment does not have to be the only cause of an injury to bring the injury under the umbrella of the workers’ compensation statute. It only needs to contribute to the injury. Here, it was clear that the deceased worker’s job was a cause of his injury and death.
“Indeed, had [the employee] not been working a shift at Taco Bell, he would not have been stabbed and killed in the restaurant’s parking lot,” the court said.
The court also noted that injuries occurring on the premises of an employer during a regular lunch break are considered work-related. It was not relevant that the employee was on an unpaid break and engaging in a purely personal act at the time of the attack. Those factors, the court said, “[do] not preclude application of the premises line rule.”
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Taco Bell’s favor.
