## Facts

- Kristina Wait worked as an executive for the American Cancer Society (ACS) and was permitted to work from home due to lack of office space.
- ACS provided work-related support for the home office, including equipment, a dedicated business telephone line, and funds for office furniture.
- Wait performed her daily work from a home office and sometimes held work meetings there.
- Wait’s job did not require her to admit the public or unscheduled visitors to her home for work-related purposes.
- During the workday, while preparing lunch in her kitchen, Wait answered her door and was brutally beaten by a neighbor for no apparent reason.
- The assault had no apparent relationship to Wait’s job duties, workplace contacts, or any work-related dispute.
- Wait sought workers’ compensation benefits, asserting the injury was compensable because it occurred during the workday at her authorized home worksite.

## Issues

1. Whether Wait’s injury occurred “in the course of” her employment when it happened at her employer-approved home worksite during the workday while she was preparing lunch.
2. Whether the injury “arose out of” her employment, requiring a causal connection between employment conditions and the risk that caused the injury, where the injury resulted from a random assault by a neighbor.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois.
- The court held the injury occurred “in the course of” employment because it happened during work hours at a place Wait reasonably could be (the approved home office) and during a personal break generally incidental to employment.
- The court held the injury did not “arise out of” employment because the assault was random, unrelated to work duties, and not attributable to any employment-created condition or employment-related risk.
- Because both statutory elements must be satisfied, the injury was not compensable.

## Legal Principles

- A Tennessee workers’ compensation claim requires proof that the injury both (1) occurred in the course of employment and (2) arose out of employment.
- “In the course of employment” focuses on time, place, and circumstances: within the employment period, at a place the employee reasonably may be, and while performing work duties or activities incidental to work.
- “Arising out of employment” requires a causal connection between employment conditions and the injury-producing risk; an injury merely coincidental to employment is not compensable.
- Assault-based injuries arise out of employment only when the assault is linked to employment (e.g., a work-related dispute or a risk associated with the work), not when the assault reflects a general community risk unrelated to job duties.
- Employer authorization and support for home-based work can satisfy the place component of “in the course of employment,” but working at home does not convert unrelated household or neighborhood risks into employment risks.

## Conclusion

The court held that although a home-based employee’s injury from a personal break during the workday may occur in the course of employment, workers’ compensation is unavailable absent a causal connection between the employment and the risk, and a random neighbor assault does not arise out of employment.


Wait v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 240 S.W.3d 220 (Tenn. 2007)