## Facts

- Dorothy Wilson worked as a grade school teacher for the Oakland Unified School District.
- After dropping her children at their school, Wilson was injured in an automobile accident while driving to the school where she taught.
- Wilson had in her car work-related items, including thread spools for art class, papers graded at home the prior evening, and books including a teaching manual.
- The district did not require teachers to commute by personal automobile; public transportation was available and used by at least one teacher.
- Wilson’s duties were performed at a fixed school site, and teachers did not travel to other locations during the workday.
- The schedule did not include a designated period for lesson planning or grading; teachers commonly completed such work at school outside class periods or at home in the evening.
- Teachers could complete preparation at school; doing work at home was largely a matter of personal convenience rather than a district requirement.
- A curriculum guide suggested using “home-gathered” materials, but the district did not require compliance and supplied adequate art materials for student use.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that (1) Wilson’s home was not a second jobsite because home activities were voluntary, (2) automobile use was for convenience, and (3) transporting work items was not a major or significant alternative reason for the trip.

## Issues

1. Whether injuries suffered during Wilson’s commute arose out of and in the course of employment despite the going-and-coming rule.
2. Whether optional work performed at home made Wilson’s home a second jobsite so that travel to school was travel between worksites.
3. Whether carrying work-related materials transformed the commute into a special mission or otherwise created an employer-benefit exception.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the order denying workers’ compensation benefits.
- The court held that Wilson’s accident occurred during a routine local commute to a fixed workplace and was barred by the going-and-coming rule.
- The court held that no recognized exception applied because automobile travel was not employer-required, the home was not a second jobsite, and transporting materials was incidental to the commute.
- The court accepted the WCAB’s findings as supported by substantial evidence and declined to reweigh competing inferences.

## Legal Principles

- Under the going-and-coming rule, injuries sustained during an employee’s ordinary travel to or from a fixed workplace at fixed hours are generally not compensable absent special circumstances.
- Exceptions may apply when the employer provides or requires transportation, directs a special errand/mission, treats the home as a required worksite, or otherwise receives a distinct benefit from the travel beyond the ordinary commute.
- Optional work performed at home for the employee’s convenience, without employer direction or control, does not make the home a second jobsite.
- The incidental transport of work materials during a commute does not convert the trip into a special mission when the work purpose is not a major or significant reason for the travel.
- Reviewing courts defer to WCAB fact-finding when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that a teacher injured while driving to work after a routine stop was outside the course of employment because the trip was a normal commute; voluntary home preparation and incidental carriage of teaching materials did not establish a second jobsite, special errand, or other exception to the going-and-coming rule.


Wilson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 16 Cal. 3d 181, 545 P.2d 225 (Cal. 1976)