Sandberg v. JC Penney Co. Inc.
Oregon Court of Appeals
260 P.3d 495, 243 Ore. App. 342 (2011)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Mary S. Sandberg (plaintiff) worked as a custom decorator for JC Penney Co. Inc. (defendant). Sandberg worked out of a JC Penney studio one day per week, but most of her time was spent selling decorating products in customers’ homes. JC Penney required Sandberg to keep current fabric samples in her own vehicles. Not all the samples fit within Sandberg’s vehicle, and she was not allowed to store them at the JC Penney studio. JC Penney instructed Sandberg to store the samples somewhere safe and dry, so Sandberg stored them in her home garage. JC Penney required Sandberg to change out the fabric samples as new collections were released. One day, as Sandberg was walking to her garage to change out the fabric samples, she tripped over her dog and injured herself. Sandberg filed a claim for workers’ compensation. JC Penney denied her claim. The administrative-law judge and the board both affirmed the denial, reasoning that the Sandberg’s injury did not arise out of her employment because the hazards of her home environment were outside JC Penney’s control. Sandberg appealed, arguing that because she was required to work out of customers’ homes and her own home, she was like a traveling employee, and the hazards she faced in her home as well as her customers’ homes were hazards of her employment. JC Penney argued that Sandberg was not a traveling employee and even if she was on her way to perform a work task when she was injured, the going-and-coming rule barred her claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duncan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.