The bunkhouse rule is the legal principle that stands for the proposition that the course of employment requirement in workers’ compensation is satisfied when an employee is injured while living on the employer’s premises if the employment contract contemplates (or the work necessity requires) the employee to reside on the employer’s premises. Aubin v. Kaiser Steel Corp. (1960) 185 Cal. App. 2d 658, 661.

There must be a connection between the employment and the injury, an injury arising out of the reasonable use of the premise, or the bunkhouse must place the employee in a particular danger. Vaught v. State of California (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1538, 1549.

In a recent panel decision, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) denied Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration to a Findings and Order ruling that an injured worker’s injury was compensable under the bunkhouse rule. In Ignacio Gonzalez v. Athwal Farms, the claimant alleged an injury due to a motor vehicle accident on his employer’s premises. Claimant lived on the defendant’s property and was working on the roof of a trailer he rented. After stopping work on the roof of the trailer, the claimant consumed alcohol with his friends over the course of the afternoon. Eventually, Claimant and two of his friends entered his vehicle and drove across Defendant’s property. Claimant proceeded to check agricultural pumps throughout the property. There were three dogs running next to the truck, and claimant swerved to avoid the dogs and crashed his vehicle. This occurred on Defendant’s property. The administrative law judge found that there was reasonable evidence the injury occurred in the course of employment under the bunkhouse rule. At the time of the accident, Claimant was checking agricultural pumps for the benefit of Defendant’s farm, and in doing so, crashed his vehicle. Noteworthy is the administrative law judge’s mention that Claimant crashed his vehicle in between checking the agricultural pumps on the property. Defendant’s attempt to bar compensability under the intoxication defense was unsuccessful as Defendant failed to offer evidence that Claimant was actually intoxicated. The WCAB’s denial of Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration was based on the record and the reasoning set forth in the administrative law judge’s report and opinion, which it adopted and incorporated in its opinion. The WCAB gave the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations significant weight because he had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses at trial.

Although it is not a significant panel decision, this case demonstrates the fact-intensive nature of the bunkhouse rule. In Gonzalez, the record confirmed that: (1) Claimant lived on the defendant’s property, and (2) the connection between the employment and the injury was satisfied when Claimant crashed his vehicle in between checking agricultural pumps for the benefit of Defendant’s farm. Accordingly, the court held that claimant suffered an industrial injury while employed with Defendant.

Other complications that may arise in these cases include but are not limited to: whether a claimant actually lives on his or her employer’s premises, whether the employment requires tenancy on the employer’s premises, whether the tenancy places the employee in a potentially dangerous surrounding, and the claimant’s job duties for his or her employer.

Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Review on February 15, 2019 with the Third Appellate District Court. Boehm will keep you updated with further developments in this matter.