|
1925 There is not sufficient nexus between an employee's falling asleep while driving home from work and the fact that he worked a double shift followed by 16 hours off followed by a night shift to invoke the special risk exception to the going and coming rule and thereby justify concluding that his commute was within the scope of employment. CitationDEPEW v CROCODILE CAFE (Double Shift) 63 CA4 480 [See: Anderson v PG&E 14 CA4 254, T/AT 5/93; Ducey v Argo 25 C3 707; Hinman v Westinghouse 2 C3 956; Lisa M v Henry Mayo 12 C4 291, T/AT 1/96; Caldwell v ARB 176 CA3 1028]
|
|
