The "actual street risk" rule was found in Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431, 434-35, 437 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993).
In Marketing Profiles, the Court recognized the following:
To satisfy the "arising out of" prong of the compensability test, the employee had to prove that "there is apparent to the rational mind upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury."
When an employee's presence on the streets is shown to be in the course of employment, "Virginia, following the majority rule, has adopted what is known as the 'actual risk test,' under which, in the words of Larson, 'it is immaterial even whether the degree of exposure is increased, if in fact the employment subjected the employee to the hazards of the street, whether continuously or infrequently.'" Id. at 434, 437 S.E.2d at 729.
The evidence proved and the commission found that Compton's injuries were caused by an automobile accident.
Compton was a passenger in his employer's truck, which was being driven by his co-employee, when he was injured.
He was in transit between two job sites, following the normal route with no detours. "Nothing in the record establishes that Compton was engaged in activities unrelated to his employment or that he was on the road as a result of a personal mission." Id. at 435, 437 S.E.2d at 729.
Indeed, credible evidence proved that when Compton was injured in the automobile accident, "his travel on the highway . . . linking . . . the two job sites was travel 'which he was authorized and obligated to perform; therefore, the hazards of highway travel thus became necessary incidents of his employment.'" Marketing Profiles, 17 Va. App. at 434-35, 437 S.E.2d at 729.
As the Court recognized in Marketing Profiles, "'if there is evidence, or reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support the Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, even though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary finding.'" Id. at 435, 437 S.E.2d at 730.