b'Workers Compensation and Job Site Commutes Continued from page 13 Empl ees.is is apositive findTh very In the Course ofoymenthighwaysduringhiscommutebepredicted.Basedonthe increased risks associated with aing by the court"comings Todecide whether theinjurycannotthatinjury aroseas the provethe jobring long and changingand goings" rule applies in cases occurred"inthecourseoffrom h employmenttherequiisbecause fixed mp ofsitus employees to genemployment," the court consid e loyerhasnocontrolovercommutes, the court found spepublic streets nor receives benefitcialh existedand thuserally preclude workers\' com nered whether duties of the contractazardspewere being performed duringfromthe employeeinjuriesoccurringduringthesationfor coveragethe commute thecommutebeingthat loca commutearoseoutoftheirto and from work. However, the at tion.employment. Based onaboveR court also established andwhethertheuckman theH ifanalysis,thedrilling crew wasexceptionstothisruleif the owever, an employeeallowed to participatethe work injured employee can prove spein canshowers\'compensationsystemforcial circumstances which support that thereinjuriessustainedduringtheirthat thecommutewas, in fact, were spe- commute.within the course of and arising 0cialhaz- Generally, under the R no oftheemployee\'s employuckma ut 0ardsanalysis,the"arisingoutofment. involvedemployment" requirement will beUnfortunately,special cirthe withhisthe key testwhether construc cumstances testbe a difficult tomay commutetion employees will be coveredrulefor employersin theccommuteonbeyondunder the workers\' compensationstruction industry toThe servedapurposeoftheapply. those of the general pub Ithensystem. Unfortunately, th arefactors th the cou ered employer\'sbusiness.Astheic,ereatrt considarosesignificant include: 1)e len h th gtdrilling crewmembers necessarilyhe can prove his injuryfromno hard and fast rules under this heof the commute (the longer tr had to conduct their work activi hisemployment.T courtinrequirement.If futurecaselaw Ruckman found that there werecontinues tointerpret workers\'com emore likely the ties on the customer\'s premisesmut thecourt instead of aor office, thismany factorsing that thesider compensation broadly, "specialwill con it in the course of factorysupportfactor supported the conclusiondrilling crew experienced specialhazards" such as highway con employment);2)whetherthe struction, bad weather conditions,employee has any specificies thattoworksite was parthazards incommute to theduttravelthetheir drillingsites.Althougheachor driving on singlene or dan to conduct during the commuof their obligation under the con la te gerousroadsmaysomedaybe(e.g. pick up tools or equipmetract.worksite was "fixed," it was stillnt naturefromthehomeofficeorobtain Like the drilling crew, rooferstemporary inas the drillingconsidered covered by workers\' andother constructionworkersow crews constantly had to changecompensation.supplies); and 3) h often the will necessarily have to work onlocations. Factors considered for testConclusion construction sites owned by theirthis prong of theinclude the employers\' customers. Thus, thisproximity of the accident scene.By focusing on facmaycourt\'s conclu torsthe specific sitin factsupport a Although the drilling crew\'s comsion that injuries occurring dur mute couldbecondu in auation of the drilling cted uckman commuteil ayriv courtndcrew,theRing aw l be consideredone-d d e, thefou that tooccurin thecourseof theirspecialhazardsexistedin thecourt established very commutefew h andrules ardfast employment.drilling crew\'sbecause the distance was greater than thefordetermining A.rising out ofcommute of the general public.whethera construcEmploymenttheWhen athe generaltion employee injured1 member of Inion to the course of thepublichasa longcommutetoduring aw l addit commuteilemploymentrequirement,thework, it is by hisher choice tobe coveredby workor live afrom the placeers\'compensation. court held that to be covered bylong distance workers\'compensation,anof employment. However, in theCI early,un the der employee must also prove that thecaseofthedrillingcrew, theRuckmancase,coninjury arose out of his employ mem could notmovecloserstructionemployees bers worksitewillbeconsidered ment.Generally,anemployeeto theiras each site was temporary inand could not" situs" employ-injured on the publicandnaturefixed streets H'