Callaghan v. Brown

• Decision Date: 10 November 1944
• Docket Number: 33841.
• Parties: CALLAGHAN v. BROWN et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

16 N.W.2d 317

218 Minn. 440

CALLAGHAN v. BROWN et al.

No. 33841.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 10, 1944

Syllabus by the Court.

An employe is not within the course of his employment or exposed to a hazard arising out of it who leaves his place of employment and solely to satisfy his own desires goes in quest of coffee for himself, crosses a street, and, in doing so, is run down by a passing automobile.

R Vern Eckman, of Duluth, for relator.

Holmes Mayall, Reavill & Neimeyer, of Duluth, for respondents.

LORING, Chief Justice.

The relator petitioned the industrial commission for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Minn.St.1941, s 176.01 et seq., for the death of her husband. The referee and the commission found for the employer and its insurer. A writ of certiorari issued from this court to review the decision.

Relator's husband worked as a fireman in the Lonsdale Building at Duluth. His principal duty was to fire the boiler. None of his duties took him outside the building, but because of the nature of his work he often had some free time. It had become his habit, acquiesced in by his employer, to leave the premises and go to a lunch counter across the street to buy coffee and return to the premises to drink it. He had been doing this once or twice a day for some 30 years. On the morning of April 15, 1942, Callaghan reported for work about 6:00 a.m. and was seen leaving the building between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m., presumably to get coffee. His body was found about 8:00 a.m., lying in the street. Apparently he had been hit by an automobile while crossing the street. He died in August 1942 as a result of the accident.

The finding of the commission was that 'on April 15, 1942, said employe sustained accidental injuries, but the occasion of said accident did not arise out of or in the course of his said employment.' Does the evidence support that finding' We think it does. The accident to deceased occurred within the period of his employment, but he was not at the time in the performance of any duty owing to his employer. He was not at a place where his duties required him to be. His death cannot in any way be traced to the nature of his employment nor to a risk to which his employer's business exposed him. He was where he was solely in furtherance of his own personal desires and accommodation. There was no causal connection between his employment and the exposure to the risks which caused his death. He did not fall within any of the special exceptions which extend the coverage of the compensation law. He was not a traveler in the course of his employment, nor did he have any mission of the employer to fulfill in connection with his personal errand. The performance of his duties to his employer did not require him to go upon the street.

While our attention has not been called to any Minnesota case which is an exact parallel to the situation here involved, the case before us is controlled by principles laid down by this court in cases of which Maxa v. County of Le Sueur, 168 Minn. 65, 209 N.W. 898, is an illustration. In that case, the injured employe was preparing his lunch on the premises of the employer under an arrangement between himself and the foreman for the personal convenience of the foreman and the employe. The findings of the industrial commission that the...