by Sure Log
Injuries sustained during an employee’s commute to or from work generally are not compensable under the “going and coming” rule, which deems that such injuries do not arise out of and in the course of employment. The rule, however, has been described as having a “tortuous history,” and has numerous exceptions, which make it difficult to uniformly apply. (Price v. WCAB (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 559, 565.)
Among the recognized exceptions is the “special risk” exception. It provides for compensation when a risk associated with the employment causes injury just outside the employer’s premises. As explained by the California Supreme Court in General Insurance Co. of America v. WCAB (Chairez) (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 595, 601, the exception requires satisfaction of a two-part test: (1) but for the employment, the employee would not have been exposed to the mechanism of injury; and (2) the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public. A separate but related exception — the “zone of employment” or “premise line” rule — extends coverage to injuries occurring in areas adjacent to the employer’s premises that the employer owns or controls.
Two recent panel decisions, Chavez v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 212, and Tabbada v. County of Sacramento, Department of Water Resources, 2026 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 137, illustrate how the special risk exception does and does not apply. Read together, these decisions establish that the critical inquiry under the second prong of Chairez is not the employee’s specific travel method on the day of injury, but whether the nature of the employment necessarily and routinely exposed the employee to a risk quantitatively greater than that faced by the general public.
THE CHAVEZ CASE
In Chavez, the applicant was a ground operations worker for JetBlue Airways at Los Angeles International Airport based out of Terminal 5. On July 10, 2023, just four minutes after clocking out of work, he was injured while preparing to enter his girlfriend’s car on World Way, a public roadway forming the upper and lower terminal loop at LAX directly outside the upper level of Terminal 5. The defendant denied the claim, arguing that the injury was barred by the going and coming rule because the applicant was not following his usual routine of taking the employee shuttle from the lower level parking lot and because World Way is a public street accessible to anyone.
The WCAB affirmed a WCJ’s decision that the claim was compensable. The appeals baord identified substantial evidence satisfying both prongs of the Chairez test: one, but for the applicant’s employment at Terminal 5, he would not have been on World Way at all; two, the WCAB found that regardless of the method of transportation chosen, all JetBlue employees working at Terminal 5 necessarily had to navigate either the upper or lower level of World Way to arrive for or depart from their shift. The applicant’s unrebutted testimony established that employees used a variety of commuting methods — personal vehicles, the employee shuttle, scooters, rideshare or rides from friends and family — and that every one of those methods required traversing World Way.
The WCAB emphasized that the controlling inquiry is not whether the employee’s exact travel method on the day of injury was routine, but whether the employment created the risk and whether that risk was greater than that faced by the public. World Way, although technically a public street, functions as the practical and necessary means of ingress and egress for Terminal 5 JetBlue employees. Unlike members of the public who visit LAX sporadically, JetBlue employees were exposed to the roadway’s chaotic, high-traffic environment — characterized by constant vehicle movement, double-parking, abrupt stops and minimal pedestrian infrastructure — on a daily basis. That routine subjected the applicant to a risk quantitatively greater than that of the general public, satisfying the second prong of Chairez. The defendant’s petition for writ of review was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeal Feb. 17, 2026. (JetBlue Airways Corp. v. WCAB (Chavez) (2026) 91 CCC 538 (writ denied).)
THE TABBADA CASE
In Tabbada, the applicant worked as an assistant civil engineer for the County of Sacramento in downtown Sacramento. On May 14, 2024, she was assaulted by an unknown assailant on a public street while walking from a bus stop to her place of employment. She had not yet arrived at the entrance to her workplace at the time of the assault. The county offered an optional transit subsidy program — the Connect Card program — that the applicant had elected to use. Her participation was voluntary, and she was free to drive to work and use the county parking garage connected to her building on days she chose not to take the bus.
The WCAB affirmed a WCJ’s decision that the claim was barred by the going and coming rule. The board found the premise line rule inapplicable because the injury occurred before the applicant entered the employer’s premises in an area over which the county had no ownership or control. The WCAB distinguished other cases — in one, the employer leased the parking lot exclusively for employee use; in another, the employer specifically directed employees to park at a particular location. Unlike those cases, the county exercised no direction or control over this applicant’s location at the time of injury.
On the special risk exception, the applicant argued that Chavez supported her claim. The WCAB explained that unlike Chavez, the applicant did not have to navigate a specific route to enter her place of employment that put her at greater risk. She had a genuine choice — she could take the bus, which deposited her on a public street some distance from the building, or she could drive to work and park in the employer-controlled garage connected directly to her building. The WCAB found no evidence to establish that entry to the job site itself created a particular risk (that is, was distinctive in nature) not shared by the public generally. It affirmed the take-nothing order, concluding that the applicant’s claim was barred by the going and coming rule.
ANALYSIS
Chavez and Tabbada, although reaching opposite conclusions, apply a unified framework and together define the operative boundary of the special risk exception to the going and coming rule. The key variable is not proximity to the workplace, the nature of the hazard encountered or whether the street where the injury occurred was technically public. The dispositive question is whether the employment itself — by virtue of the work site’s physical configuration and the practical requirements of accessing it — necessarily subjected the employee to a risk quantitatively greater than that faced by the general public, regardless of commuting choice.
In Chavez, the design of LAX made that answer yes. There was no way to reach or leave Terminal 5 without traversing World Way. The risk was structurally embedded in every commuting option available to JetBlue employees. The particular method the applicant used on the day of his injury (being picked up rather than taking the employee shuttle) was legally irrelevant because the underlying exposure was the same across all methods. The WCAB’s reasoning reflects a principle that an employer cannot avoid liability for a special risk simply because an employee happened to encounter the risk in an unconventional way on a given day when the same risk would have materialized regardless of how the employee traveled.
In Tabbada, the facts weighed against the applicant. The existence of an alternative route into the workplace — the employer-controlled parking garage — helped to defeat the special risk argument. The county did not direct nor control the applicant’s route to work, and a viable alternative would have eliminated the hazardous stretch of public street entirely. The applicant’s exposure to the risk, therefore, was a product of her commuting choice, not a structural feature of the employment. This factual distinction is the cornerstone of the WCAB’s analysis and the point on which the two cases diverge.
For applicant practitioners, Chavez establishes that the special risk exception can apply even when the injury occurs on a public street and even if the employee’s travel method on the day of injury was not routine, so long as the employment funnels all employees through a common zone of elevated risk. The focus in developing the record should be on evidence establishing that the hazardous condition was a structural and unavoidable feature of accessing the work site and not merely a risk the employee happened to encounter during a personal commute.
For defense practitioners, Tabbada provides the clearest limiting principle: When the employee had a meaningful choice among commuting options, at least one of which would have avoided the hazardous condition, the special risk exception is unlikely to apply. Evidence that the employer neither directed the employee’s route nor controlled the area of injury, and that the employee voluntarily selected the commuting method that exposed her or him to the risk, goes directly to whether the second prong of Chairez is satisfied.
Although neither Chavez nor Tabbada is binding, both are citable. Application of the special risk exception will depend on the specific facts of each case, and the going and coming rule’s resistance to automatic application means that minor factual variations can determine the outcome.
Stay ahead of the updates
If you work in claims, our on-demand Claims Practitioner in Workers’ Compensation (CPWC) builds the practical skills to respond to decisions like Difusco. For attorneys and legal teams, Workers’ Compensation for Legal Professionals (WCLP) dives into strategy, procedure, and real-world application. Explore CPWC and WCLP to keep your decisions compliant and your workflows efficient.
Sure S. Log is a seasoned specialist in workers’ compensation defense and related labor law, providing expert analysis on litigation and settlement strategies. His expertise includes conducting thorough legal research, reviewing case records to streamline discovery, and drafting comprehensive trial and appellate briefs.
A thought leader in the field, Mr. Log regularly develops seminar materials and co-authors influential white papers on critical workers’ compensation topics. His publications include “An Analysis of the New Regulations Regarding Disputes Over Medical-Legal Expense and Medical Treatment,” “Special Report: A First Look at SB 863” detailing the 2012 reforms to California’s workers’ compensation system, and “SB 863: Five Years Later.”
Mr. Log is also the co-author of Sullivan on Comp, a 16-chapter definitive analysis of California workers’ compensation law, which is updated monthly to ensure ongoing relevance and accuracy for industry professionals.
