In Medrano V

In Medrano v.Marshall Electrical Contracting Inc.,the court had to determine whether Medrano was covered by workers' compensation when he was killed while driving home from a night class.They said:

A) since he was driving home, the "coming and going" rule prevented a valid lawsuit.
B) the class was solely benefiting Medrano, so the employer had no liability.
C) even though the class made Medrano a better employee and benefited the company, Medrano was kill off of the company premises, so it was not a job related injury and the company was not liable.
D) because the class made Medrano a better employee and the company benefited from having a better employee, the "mutual benefit" doctrine applied, and the company was liable for workers' compensation benefits.
E) because Medrano was killed by a drunk driver, since the company had no control of the situation, and since the company could not have acted to prevent the injury, the employee's death was not a compensable, work-related injury.