Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013 (2026)

"Acting in the course of employment."

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) "Acting in the course of employment" means the worker acting at his or her employer's direction or in the furtherance of his or her employer's business which shall include time spent going to and from work on the jobsite, as defined in RCW 51.32.015 and 51.36.040, insofar as such time is immediate to the actual time that the worker is engaged in the work process in areas controlled by his or her employer, except parking area. It is not necessary that at the time an injury is sustained by a worker he or she is doing the work on which his or her compensation is based or that the event is within the time limits on which industrial insurance or medical aid premiums or assessments are paid.
(2) "Acting in the course of employment" does not include:
(a) Time spent going to or coming from the employer's place of business in an alternative commute mode, notwithstanding that the employer (i) paid directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the cost of a fare, pass, or other expense associated with the alternative commute mode; (ii) promoted and encouraged employee use of one or more alternative commute modes; or (iii) otherwise participated in the provision of the alternative commute mode.
(b) An employee's participation in social activities, recreational or athletic activities, events, or competitions, and parties or picnics, whether or not the employer pays some or all of the costs thereof, unless: (i) The participation is during the employee's working hours, not including paid leave; (ii) the employee was paid monetary compensation by the employer to participate; or (iii) the employee was ordered or directed by the employer to participate or reasonably believed the employee was ordered or directed to participate.
(3) "Alternative commute mode" means (a) a carpool or vanpool arrangement whereby a group of at least two but not more than fifteen persons including passengers and driver, is transported between their places of abode or termini near those places, and their places of employment or educational or other institutions, where the driver is also on the way to or from his or her place of employment or educational or other institution; (b) a bus, ferry, or other public transportation service; or (c) a nonmotorized means of commuting such as bicycling or walking.
[ 1997 c 250 s 10; 1995 c 179 s 1; 1993 c 138 s 1; 1979 c 111 s 15; 1977 ex.s. c 350 s 8; 1961 c 107 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1979 c 111: See note following RCW 46.74.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: Entila v. Cook, 386 P.3d 1099 (Wash. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Entila v. Cook, 386 P.3d 1099 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 13× “013(1) states: “Acting in the course of employment” means the worker acting at his or her employer’s direction or in the furtherance of his or her employer’s business which shall include time spent going to and from work on the jobsite, as defined in RCW 51.”
Ball-foster Glass Cont. Co. v. Giovanelli, 177 P.3d 692 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 10× “Supporting this conclusion is another problem; Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
Univ. of Washington, Harborview Med. Ctr. v. Marengo, 95 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “The Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) decided that under the parking area exception to RCW 51.08.013(1) Marengo’s injury was not covered and denied his claim for benefits.”
Madera v. J.R. Simplot, Co., 104 Wash. App. 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “Madera because of a “parking areas” exclusion found in RCW 51.08.013. The superior court reversed on summary judgment.”
Ball-Foster Glass Container Co. v. Giovanelli, 163 Wash. 2d 133 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 9× “Supporting this conclusion is another problem: Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “*937 Respondents suggest that because the time Reed spent traveling from California was not immediate to the time he was engaged in work for his employer, he was not acting in the course of his employment under RCW 51.08.013(1). But that statute, which provides coverage for…”
Hamilton v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 462 P.2d 917 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 14× “The facts are virtually undisputed and the only issue arising therefrom concerns itself with whether respondent, at the time of her injury, was "acting in the course of employment" as that phrase is defined in RCW 51.08.013. At the time of respondent's injury, and for some years…”
Boeing Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.3d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “We hold that the Board did not err in finding that Rooney’s injury fell within the “going and coming” rule in RCW 51.08.013, and thus he was entitled to coverage under the act.”
Francisco Entila Et Al., Appellants, v. Gerald Cook Et Al., Respondents, 360 P.3d 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “The trial court decided that RCW 51.08.013 provided Cook immunity if the alleged tort occurred on the jobsite.”
Belnap v. Boeing Co., 823 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “His payroll records reflect that his salary included leave with pay for jury service through Belnap's full shift on October 24, 1985, the day of his death.”
Cochran Elec. Co. v. Mahoney, 121 P.3d 747 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “[9] RCW 51.08.013 (emphasis added). [10] Lunz v.”
Boeing Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.3d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Under RCW 51.08.013, "`[a]cting in the course of employment'" is defined to include travel to and from work on the jobsite in areas controlled by the employer.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(1) — 23 cases
Univ. of Washington, Harborview Med. Ctr. v. Marengo, 95 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) decided that under the parking area exception to RCW 51.08.013(1) Marengo’s injury was not covered and denied his claim for benefits.”
Ball-foster Glass Cont. Co. v. Giovanelli, 177 P.3d 692 (Wash. 2008). “Supporting this conclusion is another problem; Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
Ball-Foster Glass Container Co. v. Giovanelli, 163 Wash. 2d 133 (Wash. 2008). “Supporting this conclusion is another problem: Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*937 Respondents suggest that because the time Reed spent traveling from California was not immediate to the time he was engaged in work for his employer, he was not acting in the course of his employment under RCW 51.08.013(1). But that statute, which provides coverage for…”
Univ. of Wash. Harborview Med. Ctr. v. Marengo, 95 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(2) — 2 cases
Cochran Elec. Co. v. Mahoney, 121 P.3d 747 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[9] RCW 51.08.013 (emphasis added). [10] Lunz v.”
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*937 Respondents suggest that because the time Reed spent traveling from California was not immediate to the time he was engaged in work for his employer, he was not acting in the course of his employment under RCW 51.08.013(1). But that statute, which provides coverage for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(2)(a) — 1 case
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*937 Respondents suggest that because the time Reed spent traveling from California was not immediate to the time he was engaged in work for his employer, he was not acting in the course of his employment under RCW 51.08.013(1). But that statute, which provides coverage for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(2)(b) — 3 cases
Ball-foster Glass Cont. Co. v. Giovanelli, 177 P.3d 692 (Wash. 2008). “Supporting this conclusion is another problem; Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
Cochran Elec. Co. v. Mahoney, 121 P.3d 747 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[9] RCW 51.08.013 (emphasis added). [10] Lunz v.”
Ball-Foster Glass Container Co. v. Giovanelli, 163 Wash. 2d 133 (Wash. 2008). “Supporting this conclusion is another problem: Giovanelli does not qualify as an employee in travel status.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(3) — 1 case
Shelton v. Azar, Inc., 954 P.2d 352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*937 Respondents suggest that because the time Reed spent traveling from California was not immediate to the time he was engaged in work for his employer, he was not acting in the course of his employment under RCW 51.08.013(1). But that statute, which provides coverage for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.013(l) — 1 case
Univ. of Washington, Harborview Med. Ctr. v. Marengo, 95 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) decided that under the parking area exception to RCW 51.08.013(1) Marengo’s injury was not covered and denied his claim for benefits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.