Was Truck Driver’s Beating Random Road Rage or Compensable Injury?

What Do You Think?

A compensable injury must arise out of employment. A case involving a commercial truck driver for a Virginia company addresses the question of whether a road rage incident can be sufficiently connected to work, or whether, as a random act of violence, it's likely to fall outside the workers’ compensation act.

The driver was making a delivery when, due to construction in the road, he had to change lanes several times. At one point, a car full of screaming men approached him, pulled in front of him, and forced him to stop.

When the driver exited the truck to complete an incident report per company policy, the men said he had hit their car. The driver later explained that the particular load he was hauling made visibility limited. The men severely beat him. When a police officer arrived, he found the driver in shock and drifting in and out of consciousness.

Prior to the beating incident, the men had called 911 and reported that they had been hit by the tractor trailer.

The workers’ compensation commissioner denied the claim, reasoning that the driver was injured because of a road rage accident that had nothing to do with his employment. The workers’ compensation commission reversed and the company appealed. 

The court explained that, to successfully recover for an assault, a claimant must show that the assault was directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment.

Could the driver recover for his assault-related injuries?

A. Yes. The men were angry because he hit their vehicle while making a delivery.

B. No. It was a random act of road rage that injured him, not his employment.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Hot Rock Haulers, LLC v. Kegley, No. 2022-23-2 (Va. Ct. App. 03/04/25), which held that the injury was covered by worker’s compensation.

The court noted that a claimant can establish that an assault is a compensable injury under the act by showing a probability that the assault was augmented because of the peculiar character of the claimant's job. 

The court pointed out that the men were upset about the truck hitting their vehicle–not about the claimant personally. The 911 call supported that view. Further, there was no evidence that the claimant and the attackers knew each other. Thus, there was nothing to suggest that anything other than the driver’s employment gave rise to the attack.

“[T]he nature of the accident that caused the assault was a circumstance born of [the claimant’s] employment, and the anger directed at [the claimant] as he was beaten by the assailants was anger about the Hot-Rock tractor trailer hitting their vehicle, not  [the claimant] in any personal capacity,” the court wrote.

It affirmed the Commission’s finding that the driver’s injuries were compensable.

Share This Article: