Providence Corp. Dev. v. Buma

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada's traveling employee rule does not require an employee's injury-producing activity to have been foreseeable to the employer. The appeals officer improperly treated foreseeability as part of the distinct-departure analysis, while the relevant inquiry is whether the employee was reasonably tending to personal comfort or instead pursuing a strictly personal amusement venture involving a material deviation from work-related travel activities. Because the district court correctly granted judicial review and determined that the dependents were entitled to benefits, the court affirmed.