premises rule in Utah

2019See infra ¶ 33. 10 Cite as: 2019 UT 55 Opinion of the Court A. Under the going-and-coming rule, accidents that occur while traveling on an employer’s premises occur “in the course of employment” ¶22 First, IHG argues that the Labor Commission erred in applying the premises rule as a bright-line rule instead of considering the benefit and control factors that we identified in our Jex case.

2019And it also makes clear that what courts sometimes refer to as the premises rule, or premises exception, is nothing more than a shorthand description of a circumstance in which the going-and-coming rule does not apply. ¶23 The going-and-coming rule is a “judicially adopted principle” that guides courts in determining whether an accident an employee suffers while traveling between home and work occurred in the course of the employee’s employment.37 An accident occurs in the course of employment if it occurs in “the time, place, and circumstances” typical of the employee’s employment.38 For exam

2019And it also makes clear that what courts sometimes refer to as the premises rule, or premises exception, is nothing more than a shorthand description of a circumstance in which the going-and-coming rule does not apply. ¶23 The going-and-coming rule is a “judicially adopted principle” that guides courts in determining whether an accident an employee suffers while traveling between home and work occurred in the course of the employee’s employment.37 An accident occurs in the course of employment if it occurs in “the time, place, and circumstances” typical of the employee’s employment.38 For exam

2017Indeed, in *923 Hope we applied the premises rule to a similar set of facts. 756 P.2d at 102-03 .

2017Indeed, in *923 Hope we applied the premises rule to a similar set of facts. 756 P.2d at 102-03 .

2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law.

2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law.

2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law.

2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law.

2016And there is a parallel principle of deference in federal law, See Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) (providing for deference to ageney interpretation of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (same). 130 We are in no way bound by the federal standard, however, And the underlying premises of this principle of deference are irreconcilable with our decisions in Murray and Hughes. 131 Schedule 38 is law.

1985Mrs. Bailey relies principally upon our decision in Park Utah Consolidated Mines Co. v. Industrial Commission, 103 Utah 64 , 133 P.2d 314 (1943), to support her position.

1985Mrs. Bailey relies principally upon our decision in Park Utah Consolidated Mines Co. v. Industrial Commission, 103 Utah 64 , 133 P.2d 314 (1943), to support her position.

1940The procedure relating to the arrest of an offender without a warrant and the seizure of “all tangible personal property” in the premises when the “arresting officer has reason to believe that one of the businesses conducted in the premises where the violation occurred” in his presence was discussed in the recent case of Utah Liquor Control Commission v. Wooras, 97 Utah 351 , 93 P. 2d 455, 461 .

1940The procedure relating to the arrest of an offender without a warrant and the seizure of “all tangible personal property” in the premises when the “arresting officer has reason to believe that one of the businesses conducted in the premises where the violation occurred” in his presence was discussed in the recent case of Utah Liquor Control Commission v. Wooras, 97 Utah 351 , 93 P. 2d 455, 461 .

1912Helgebye v. Dammen, 13 N. D. 167 , 100 N. W. 245 .

1912Helgebye v. Dammen, 13 N. D. 167 , 100 N. W. 245 .