Bob Allyn Masonry v. Murphy, 124 Nev. 279

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed whether an employee injured in an automobile accident while returning from a special errand for his employer was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The court adopted the actual street-risk rule and held that the special errand exception to the going-and-coming rule includes the return journey. The court reversed and remanded because factual questions remained regarding whether the injuries arose from a risk of employment and whether the employee had resumed a solely personal journey.

Holdings

1. Nevada adopts the actual street-risk rule: when an employee is required to use public streets and highways to carry out employment obligations, the risks of those streets and highways become risks of employment, and an injury caused by an actual roadway risk arises out of employment.
2. The special-errand exception to Nevada's going-and-coming rule encompasses both travel to perform the special errand and the return journey from that errand.
3. Murphy was not established as entitled to benefits on the existing record because factual questions remained concerning both whether his injuries were caused by an employment-related roadway risk and whether he was still returning from the special errand or had resumed a solely personal journey.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an employee required to drive on public streets to perform an employment duty may establish that an injury arising from a roadway risk arose out of employment.
2. Whether the special-errand exception to the going-and-coming rule includes the employee's return journey after completing the employer's errand.
3. Whether factual issues remained regarding whether Murphy was still returning from the special errand when the accident occurred and whether his injuries were caused by a risk inherent in roadway travel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded