Harrison v. Lustra Corp. of America
Decision Date | 12 June 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 9092,9092 |
Citation | 84 Idaho 320,372 P.2d 397 |
Parties | O. D. HARRISON, Claimant-Appellant, v. LUSTRA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Employer, and Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, Surety, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Gus Carr Anderson, Vern E. Herzog, Jr., Pocatello, for appellant.
Richards, Haga & Eberle, Dale O. Morgan, Boise, for respondents.
O. D. Harrison, appellant (claimant) was employed on a commission basis by respondent, Lustra Corporation of America, as its sales representative in selling light tubes and fixtures.
About April 6, 1960, in pursuance of his employment, appellant went to Rexburg, Idaho, where he rented a motel room at the Shannon Motel. Throughout the day he called on customers, ate his evening meal, and returned to his motel room at about 6:00 P.M. He then made out his required daily report and also his weekly report, following which he drove his car to the post office to mail the reports, returning to his room at approximately 9:00 P.M. Shortly thereafter he proceeded to take a shower bath following which he turned off the faucets and was in the act drawing aside the curtains when something happened, the details of which he cannot recall. Appellant was afterwards told by the management of the motel that he opened the door of the motel office and as he was saying that he needed help, he immediately collapsed on the floor. At that time he was clad in his shoes, pants and robe.
The next morning he was taken to the local hospital--the record does not disclose what, if any, examination was there made. However he was, during that morning, returned to the motel and later taken by his wife to the hospital in Pocatello.
Appellant was denied compensation by the Industrial Accident Board from which order this appeal is taken.
The Board found that by reason of his accidental injury appellant was totally disabled for work from April 7 to September 6, 1960. However, error is assigned to the ultimate finding and ruling of the Board on the main issue which is:
'The Board finds and rules that claimant's taking of a bath on the evening of April 6, 1960, was a personal act in the course of normal living and that his accidental injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.'
It is appellant's contention that the great weight of evidence is convincing that appellant intended to continue with his work after being refreshed by a shower bath. In this connection, appellant, in explanation of what he did after he had prepared and mailed his daily and weekly reports (hereinbefore mentioned) testified:
'A. Victor Leach is my immediate superior, directly under Frosty Killins.
'
* * *
* * *
The Board pointed out that the foregoing testimony is somewhat at variance with the allegations of appellant's claim dated December 9, 1960 (which was admitted as an exhibit) the pertinent portion of which is:
'Employee was a guest of Shannon Motel, Rexburg, Idaho, preparing to retire, while traveling in the course of employment as a traveling salesman.
The Board did not arrive at a determination as to whether appellant intended to retire or write a letter to his superior after taking his bath. In this connection the Board found:
Appellant contends that since the Board could not make a finding as to appellant's intent at the time he was injured the case should be resolved in favor of appellant and allow compensation. Appellant cites the New York case of Miller v. F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 3 N.Y.2d 654, 171 N.Y.S.2d 77, 148 N.E.2d 296 as involving similar facts and being very much in point. In that case the claimant, a sales representative and general manager, was directed to attend a 3-day convention which was being held for the purpose of instructing members of the trade on new methods and experimental work. The employer reimbursed claimant for all his expenses; his schedule called for sessions in the field during the day and indoor sessions in the evenings. Following an outdoor session during which he had occasion to dig in the soil and freely perspire, and in preparation for the evening session, he stepped into the bathtub to take a shower and as he did so he slipped and fell. In remitting the matter to the Board for further consideration, the Court said:
The instant case is distinguishable from the Miller case in the following factual respects. Appellant was employed as a sales representative on a commission basis to operate within a designated area; he was neither requested nor directed to go to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Talbot v. Ames Const.
...837 P.2d 316, 318 (1992); Nycum v. Triangle Dairy Co., 109 Idaho 858, 862, 712 P.2d 559, 563 (1985); Harrison v. Lustra Corp. of Am., 84 Idaho 320, 325-26, 372 P.2d 397, 400-01 (1962); Dyre v. Kloepfer & Cahoon, 64 Idaho 612, 617, 134 P.2d 610, 612 (1943). "It would be an improper invasion ......
-
Mulready v. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
...a shower. This decision relied on two cases that now lack precedential value.4 Relief was also denied in Harrison v. Lustra Corp. of America, 84 Idaho 320, 372 P.2d 397 (1962), where the claimant was similarly injured. That case, however, is distinguishable from the case before us in that H......
-
Bennett v. Bunker Hill Co.
...out that a compensation claimant has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Harrison v. Lustra Corporation of America, 84 Idaho 320, 372 P.2d 397; Dawson v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 82 Idaho 406, 353 P.2d 765; Darvell v. Wardner Industrial Union, 78 Idaho 309, 302......
-
West Virginia Judicial Inquiry Commission v. Allamong
...Railroad v. Owen, 121 Ala. 505, 25 So. 612 (1898); Hermann v. Littlefield, 109 Cal. 430, 42 P. 443 (1895); Harrison v. Lustra Corp., 84 Idaho 320, 325, 372 P.2d 397, 399-400 (1962); Hall v. Dawson, 429 S.W.2d 366 (Ky.1968); Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Frost National Bank, 501 S.W.2d 418, ......