Jackson v. Clark Fay, Inc., 197 Tenn. 135, 270 S.W.2d 389, 390 (1954). However, in limited circumstances, where the employment involves "indiscriminate exposure to the general public," the "street risk" doctrine may supply the required causal connection between the employment and the injury. Jesse v. Savings Prods., 772 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tenn. 1989); see also Hudson, 583 S.W.2d at 602 (adopting the "street risk" doctrine). In Hudson, this Court adopted the "street risk" doctrine, which provides that "if the employment exposes the employee to the hazards of the street that it is a risk or danger incident to and inherent in the employment and provides the necessary causal connection between the employment and the injury."

This Court recently addressed the question of whether a workplace assault by a stranger arises out of employment. In Jesse v. Savings Products, 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989), a worker was raped by a stranger on the premises of her employer's convenience store. The Court, in holding that the assault arose out of the worker's employment, recognized that while an employment-related motive on the part of an assailant is usually proof that an injury by assault arose out of the employment, "the assailant's motive is not always determinative" and the employee need not always establish the stranger's motivation in order to connect the assault to the employment.

In prior cases, we have identified factors which aid a court in determining whether emotional injuries arose out of employment. In Jesse v. Savings Products, 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989), a convenience market clerk sought to recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries suffered after she was raped by a customer on the premises of the market. The employer argued that the injury was not compensable because the injury arose from a personal motive and not an employment-related motive.

In some cases, the street risk doctrine has been applied to afford recovery to an employee injured as a result of this "indiscriminate exposure to the general public" while engaged in actual performance of work duties. See Beck, 779 S.W.2d 367, 371 (employee driver's license examiner assaulted on employer's premises while performing employment duties; street risk doctrine applied though not mentioned by name); Jesse v. Savings Products, 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989) (employee convenience store clerk raped by customer). In others, including the seminal Hudson case, the doctrine afforded the requisite causal connection even though the employee was not at the time performing traditional work duties.

Based on the undisputed facts, there is not a sufficient nexus or causal connection between the injuries arising from the sexual assault and the nature of Ms. Doe's employment to conclude that the injury arose out of the employment. The facts and circumstances of this case are distinguishable from those in Jesse v. Savings Products, 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989) and Beck v. State, 779 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn. 1989), upon which P.F. Chang's relies.

It is worth noting that in Jesse v. Savings Prods., the Tennessee Supreme Court found that a convenience store clerk was entitled to workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained from a third-party assault on the employer's premises. 772 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tenn. 1989). The Court found that “the Plaintiff's indiscriminate exposure to the general public is one of the conditions under which her work was required to be performed, and the actions on the premises are reasonably considered hazards of the employment.” Id.

Plaintiff was working as a banquet server when the altercation occurred, and the alleged assault by an intoxicated guest during brunch may reasonably be considered an injury that is rationally connected to his work duties. See Jesse v. Sav. Prods., 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989) ("The Plaintiff's indiscriminate exposure to the general public is one of the conditions under which her work was required to be performed, and the actions of those persons on the premises are reasonably considered hazards of the employment."). As a result, Plaintiff's negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim falls within the scope of the TWCA.

See Hurst v. Labor Ready, 197 S.W.3d 756 (Tenn. 2006); Jesse v. Savings Prods., 772 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. 1989). Further, the fact that Xelica did not engage in retail sales is not a valid reason to refuse application of the street risk doctrine to these circumstances.

In Wait, the Court observed that, "in limited circumstances, where the employment involves 'indiscriminate exposure to the general public,' the 'street risk' doctrine may supply the required causal connection between the employment and the injury." Wait, 240 S.W.3d at 228 (quoting Jesse v. Savings Prods., 772 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tenn. 1989)). In the instant case, the trial court applied the street risk doctrine to find a causal connection between Employee's job and the assault that resulted in her PTSD. Employer argues that the trial court erred because the evidence presented to the trial court did not show that Employee was indiscriminately exposed to the general public.

Courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion in similar cases. See, e.g., Jesse v. Savings Products, 772 S.W.2d 425,427 (Tenn 1989); Holthaus v. Industrial Comm'n, 127 Ill. App.3d 732, 469 N.E.2d 237 (1984). We turn to plaintiff's final contention.