The Remote Site Doctrine in Alaska

• Citation: Vol. 21
• Publication year: 2004

§ 21 Alaska L. Rev. 289. THE REMOTE SITE DOCTRINE IN ALASKA

Alaska Law Review
Volume 21
Cited: 21 Alaska L. Rev. 289

THE REMOTE SITE DOCTRINE IN ALASKA

JOSEPH A. KALAMARIDES ^[1000]

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE ADOPTION AND DEFINITION OF THE LIMITS OF THE REMOTE SITE DOCTRINE

A. Legislative Background: Basis for Recovery under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act

B. R.C.A. Service Co. v. Liggett and the Going and Coming Rule

C. The Adoption of the Remote Site Doctrine Exception

D. Personal Activity and the Remote Site Doctrine

III. LEGISLATIVE REACTION TO THE DOCTRINE

IV. CURRENT STATUS OF THE REMOTE SITE DOCTRINE

V. CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES

Alaska's unique geography and abundance of valuable natural resources in remote locations has created a great deal of employment in remote sites, requiring substantial travel. In this Comment, the author examines the "remote site doctrine," a body of statutory and common law dealing with workers' compensation issues arising from employment at these remote locations.

I. INTRODUCTION

Ever since United States Secretary of State William Seward negotiated the state's purchase, Alaska has been known as the country's "last frontier." ^[1] Distinguished by its rugged landscape and extreme climate, Alaska is one-fifth the size of all other U.S. states combined and reaches so far to the west that it extends into the Eastern Hemisphere. ^[2] Much of this land remains wilderness, with various locations around the state remaining inaccessible except by air.

With an abundance of valuable resources located in largely unsettled areas, Alaska is unique in part because of the large number of employees who have historically worked away from home at various remote sites around the state. From the oil fields in Prudhoe Bay to the construction sites on the Aleutian Chain, individuals work hundreds of miles from home in harsh weather conditions. Employers in these re-[*pg 290] mote locations provide housing and meals to their employees; by virtue of the location, these workers are required to work, live, and eat at the job site, often for weeks at a time.

The unique character of employment in remote locations around Alaska, including the extent to which employees rely on their employers and the loss of freedom that employees experience during their employment, raises a number of interesting legal questions. In particular, courts have shaped workers' compensation law to reflect working conditions in these locales.

In 1959, Alaska completely rewrote its workers' compensation laws at the end of the state's first legislative session. ^[3] After two years of hearings, the Alaska Legislature passed a comprehensive act, which was patterned after the 1964 version of the Federal Longshore and Harborworkers' Compensation Act ^[4] and was intended to provide quick and immediate medical and compensation benefits for those employees injured on the job. ^[5] In exchange, the employees could not file negligence suits against their employers. ^[6] In essence, the Act provides mandatory insurance coverage for employees and is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. ^[7]

The extent and breadth of Alaska's workers' compensation coverage has often been litigated. ^[8] Coverage is generally activated when an employee begins the job each day and ends when he completes the job for that day. ^[9] Injuries incurred while traveling to and from work are not covered unless they fall under a recognized exception to the rule. ^[10] In addition, injuries that occur while the employee is involved in personal activities are not covered, but several exceptions exist. ^[11] One important exception that has evolved over time in Alaska involves injuries to workers employed in remote locations, who are subject to certain lifestyle restrictions because of their work. ^[12]

[*pg 291]

In a series of cases in which the Alaska Supreme Court has confronted the issues arising from work at these remote locations, the court has adopted and defined what is known as the "remote site doctrine." ^[13] This Comment will examine the shape this doctrine has taken in Alaska by first addressing the legislative background and cases that adopted the doctrine and defined its limits. It will then review the Alaska legislative reaction to the initial case law. Finally, this Comment will examine the current status of the doctrine in Alaska.

II. THE ADOPTION AND DEFINITION OF THE LIMITS OF THE REMOTE SITE DOCTRINE

A. Legislative Background: Basis for Recovery under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act

The remote site doctrine in Alaska common law traces its roots to jurisprudence from more general areas of workers' compensation law developed under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act. ^[14] Understanding what has shaped the courts' decision in this area requires an examination of the legal framework from which the doctrine springs.

Coverage under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act requires that an injury "arise out of and in the course of employment." ^[15] Under this rule, injuries that occur on the job while an employee is performing his job duties are compensable. On the other hand, an injury caused by personal activity is not considered work-related even if that injury occurred on the employer's premises.

While many cases are easy to identify as "aris[ing] out of the course of employment," work-related travel and situations in which the employee is injured at his workplace outside of working hours present particularly vexing issues. Whether an injury arose out of or in the course of employment, such that it is compensable, requires that (1) the injury was "reasonably foreseeable" to the employer and (2) that the injury was "incidental" to the employment. ^[16] For instance, the Alaska Supreme Court adopted the position articulated by Justice Cardozo and applied this test when considering the compensability of injuries sustained while traveling for a dual purpose:

If the work of the employee creates the necessity for travel, he is in the course of his employment, though he is serving at the same time some purpose of his own. . . . If, however, the work has had no part in [*pg 292] creating the necessity for travel, if the journey would have gone forward though the business errand had been dropped, and would have been canceled upon failure of the private purpose, though the business errand was undone, the travel is then personal, and personal the risk. ^[17]

Under this rule, if work creates the necessity for the employee's travels, the employee is protected by workers' compensation even when the injury-causing activity is not directly aimed at advancing the employer's interest. ^[18]

B. R.C.A. Service Co. v. Liggett and the Going and Coming Rule

Injuries occurring on an employer's premises are much more likely to be covered under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act than injuries occurring off-site. ^[19] The rationale for this tendency is that the premises of the employer is a defined zone within which the employer arguably controls the actions of its employees; when the employee steps over the threshold, the employer takes possession of the employee and thus assumes responsibility for the employee's safety. ^[20] On the other hand, when off-site, an employee is generally considered to be responsible for his own actions. ^[21] Recognizing these circumstances, Alaska courts have adopted the "Going and Coming Rule," under which travel to and from work is considered a "personal activity." ^[22] Under this rule, injuries occurring outside the employer's premises while an employee is traveling to or from work are not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment.

In R.C.A. Service Co. v. Liggett, ^[23] the Alaska Supreme Court's first treatment of employee injuries in remote work locations, the court upheld the Going and Coming Rule. ^[24] There, Fred Liggett was killed in a plane crash during a journey from his job site in Clear, Alaska, to his home in Fairbanks after working on Christmas Day at his employer's request. ^[25] Prior to the accident, Liggett worked for R.C.A. for six months, during which time he lived at R.C.A.'s camp all but two nights a week. ^[26] On Saturday and Wednesday nights, Liggett habitually flew home to Fairbanks to spend time with his family. ^[27] On this Christmas, although [*pg 293] Liggett had spent the holiday at work at R.C.A.'s request, he paid for his own flight home on a private plane. ^[28]

The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board found that Liggett's death arose out of the course of his employment with R.C.A. ^[29] However, in reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Alaska adopted the Going and Coming Rule and reversed the Board's decision:

Although Alaska has no case directly on point, it is well settled in most jurisdictions that injuries occurring off the employer's premises while the employee is going to or coming from work do not arise in the course of his employment. We believe that the rule is reasonable and logical and that it draws a practical line for determining where the employer's liability to pay compensation begins and ends. ^[30]

The court held that Liggett's trip to be with his family on Christmas Day was purely a personal choice. ^[31] The employer did not arrange or pay for the transportation or exercise any control over the private carrier. ^[32] Further, no express or implied contract of employment...