Did Auto Body Worker’s Shooting Himself at Work ‘Arise Out Of’ Employment?

February 2, 2026

What Do You Think?

With states generally allowing individuals to carry guns, including at work, an interesting issue is whether a shooting accident at work can trigger a compensable claim. A case involving a claimant who estimated vehicle damage at an auto body shop and ended up damaging his own body sheds some light on that topic.

The estimator always carried a gun. He had done so for several years for personal protection prior to taking the job. The job consisted of estimating the cost of repairs for the damaged vehicles that came in. He didn’t need the gun to do his job, and the company did not require him to carry one. But he said the area was dangerous due to the homeless population.

The claimant’s manager knew the claimant had a gun and advised him not to carry it around at work. The manager also brought his own gun to work, but left it in his vehicle during work hours and said he never felt in danger.

The estimator was in the area where they parked the damaged cars waiting to be repaired. While carrying out his duties, he decided to move a damaged pick-up truck. As he climbed into the seat, his gun went off and shot him in the leg. He filed a workers’ compensation claim. An ALJ denied the claim on the basis that it did not arise out of employment. The estimator appealed.

To obtain workers’ compensation, a claimant must show that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment. To arise out of employment, an injury must result from some risk of the employment or be incidental to carrying out the worker’s duties.

Did the claimant’s injuries arise out of his employment at the auto repair shop?

A. Yes. Because the area was so dangerous, he needed to carry a gun; thus, carrying the gun was related to a risk of his employment.

B. No. He didn’t have any work-related duties that required him to carry the gun.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Goins v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. CA-IC 24-0021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 01/21/26), which ruled that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of employment.

The court found no causal connection between the claimant’s job and the injury. This was largely because no part of the job required him to have a gun at work. While the claimant argued that he carried the gun to remain safe, the manager’s statements suggested that the area was not especially dangerous.

Even if it were dangerous, the fact that he carried the gun for personal protection all the time and in many other places suggested he was not wearing it because his workplace in particular was dangerous. Further, he had no work duties that involved protecting himself or others from dangers. Thus, the risk of injury was not work-related. Rather, it was personal to the claimant.

The court considered the claimant's introduction of a gun to the work environment an "imported danger." In Space Steel Corp. v. Jones' Dependents, 248 So. 2d 807, 809 (Miss. 1971), the Mississippi Supreme Court explained that "the doctrine of `imported danger' refers to that class of cases in which the source of the injury was a hazard brought onto the employment premises by the claimant himself.

Workers' Comp 101: Larson's Workers' Compensation Law notes situations where "the imported-danger idea has been invoked: explosives, automobiles, food and drink, matches, and unsuitable clothing brought by the employee," and that such cases, "on the whole, confirm the basic rule that there must be some employment contribution to the risk when the initial source of harm is a distinctly personal danger."

The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury arose out of employment because his employer acquiesced in his carrying the gun at work. While the employer may have known about the gun, this was not enough to establish a causal relationship between the job and injury.

“That [the employer] did not directly prohibit him from carrying a gun did not make it necessary for his employment, and there is no evidence [the employer] authorized or allowed [the claimant] to perform security duties as part of his job,” the court said.

The court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of the claim.