Summary Judgment Reversed.

Plaintiff lived in a State-owned rental unit on the grounds of San Quentin prison, and he walked from his residence to the prison building where he worked. One day, a concrete step on a staircase collapsed underneath him and he suffered injuries in a fall. He filed a lawsuit and the trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment based on a “premises line” argument. That is, the trial court reasoned an employment relationship commences when an employee enters an employer’s premises, and, accordingly, such an employee’s remedy was exclusively under workers’ compensation laws. The appellate court reversed, noting the State did not intend its workers compensations policy would insure plaintiff for all injuries he might suffer on the grounds since plaintiff’s lease required he obtain a broad comprehensive insurance policy, naming the State as the insured, and concluding whether plaintiff’s injury arose during the course and scope of his employment is a question of fact. (Wright v. State of California (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 2; January 30, 2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1218, [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 135].)