An employee is traveling on business at the request of his employer and while stopped for lunch at a restaurant the employee is injured. The claim would be:

• A. Not compensable because of the coming and going rule.
• B. Not compensable because the employee was on a lunch break.
• C. Compensable due to the Bunkhouse rule.
• D. Compensable due to the commercial traveler rule.

Answer: (D)

When an employee is sent away on business by the employer, the trip itself is treated as work-related travel. California’s commercial traveler rule provides that injuries occurring to a traveling employee during the course of that business travel—whether during the journey, while stopping for meals, or at lodging away from home—are within the scope of employment and thus compensable. The coming-and-going rule normally blocks injuries on ordinary commutes, but it doesn’t apply here because the employee isn’t commuting to a fixed workplace; he is on an employer-requested business trip. The lunch stop is incidental to the business travel, so the injury happened while performing employment duties. The bunkhouse rule isn’t relevant since there’s no company-provided housing at a remote site in this scenario.