A high school teacher leaves school after the day; district-owned lot; two blocks away; at a red light a man forces entry into her car and assaults her. Which statement is correct?

• A. The injury is not compensable because of the coming and going rule.
• B. The injury is not compensable because it did not occur in the district's lot on their property.
• C. The injury is not compensable because it does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions to Labor Code 3600.
• D. The injury is compensable because the employment subjected the employee to a special risk.

Answer: (D)

The main idea tested is the special risk exception to the coming‑and‑going rule in California workers’ compensation. Normally injuries that happen during a worker’s commute are not covered, but there’s an exception when the employment subjects the worker to a unique risk—something arising from the job or the employer’s environment.

In this scenario, the teacher leaves from a district‑owned lot after the workday. The district controls that property, and the assault occurs as she is leaving that employer‑associated area. Because the harm arises in connection with the employment and from a setting created by the employer (the district’s property and after‑hours exposure), the risk is considered special to the job. That linkage makes the injury compensable under the special risk doctrine.

So this isn’t dismissed by the usual coming‑and‑going rule, since the law recognizes that being in or near the employer’s environment after hours can expose an employee to a risk not shared by the general public, and the harm can be compensable as arising out of the employment.