WCAT-2008-01378 found that although the employer provided the vehicle, the plaintiff’s drive to work did not arise out of and in the course of his employment: In all of these cases [in which the vehicle was found to be analogous to a crew bus] there were factors, other than the simple provision of a vehicle, which resulted in the transport vehicle being deemed an extension of the employer’s premises. In the present case, I do not find other factors that would serve to bring the journey to work within the plaintiff’s employment. I also note there is evidence that the plaintiff occasionally used the vehicle for personal reasons. In these circumstances I find that, although the plaintiff was using a vehicle provided by his employer, he was still commuting to work. [emphasis added] WCAT-2010-02561, Fraser v. ICBC (former Chapter 3 policy)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.