Ibm Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 50527

• Decision Date: 31 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 50527,50527
• Citation: 142 Cal.Rptr. 543,77 Cal.App.3d 279
• Parties: IBM CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and Annie L. Korpela, Respondents. Civ.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 543

142 Cal.Rptr. 543

77 Cal.App.3d 279

IBM CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and Annie L. Korpela, Respondents.

Civ. No. 50527.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Jan. 31, 1978.

Hearing Denied March 30, 1978.

Kendig, Stockwell & Gleason, Inc., and Harvey G. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, for petitioners.

Charles L. Swezey, Philip M. Miyamoto and Thomas J. McBirnie, San Francisco, for respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.

Taus & Myers and Irachmil B. Taus, II, Beverly Hills, for repondent Annie L. Korpela.

THOMPSON, Associate Justice.

1] This proceeding for a review of a determination of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board raises a narrow issue of application of the " commercial traveler rule." We apply a liberal interpretation of the rule as mandated by Wiseman v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 570, 297 P.2d 649. Accordingly, we uphold a determination of the board finding that a worker killed in an automobile accident was then within the course of his employment where: (1) the worker was sent by his employer from his home base in California to a training facility of the employer in Chicago, Illinois; (2) the employer paid the worker's transportation to Chicago and allowed him a per diem to cover lodging and meals for the entire training period; (3) the employer required the employee to work only Monday through Friday; (4) the employer was aware of and encouraged the employee to visit relatives in Kenosha, Wisconsin, 59 miles from Chicago; and (5) the worker was killed while returning to Chicago from a weekend visit to his relatives in Kenosha in the midst of the period of his assignment to Chicago.

Facts

In 1974, Thomas Korpela was employed by IBM Corporation as a "technical support representative." His permanent place of employment was an IBM facility in California. Early in July of 1974, Korpela was assigned by his supervisor to a 10-day training program at IBM's Chicago, Illinois, facility. Korpela's relatives lived in Kenosha, Wisconsin, about 60 miles from Chicago. He was encouraged by the office manager and principal supervisor of his California place of employment to visit his Wisconsin relatives during the period he was to be in Chicago.

IBM arranged and paid for Korpela's transportation to Chicago. It arranged for hotel accommodations and paid Korpela a per diem of $23 to cover food and lodging. The per diem was paid for each day that Korpela was on the trip, although he was required to be present at IBM's Chicago facility only Monday through Friday during normal working hours. Korpela was not required to remain at the hotel arranged by IBM and was entitled to his per diem regardless of where he stayed. There were no restrictions on the manner in which Korpela spent his leisure time while on his Chicago assignment.

Scheduled to return on July 19, Korpela left for Chicago on July 7, 1974. He worked at IBM's Chicago facility the ensuing week. Friday night or Saturday morning, Korpela left Chicago to visit his relatives in Kenosha. On Sunday, July 14, Korpela, while returning from Kenosha to Chicago in an automobile driven by his cousin, was killed when the automobile ran off the road.

Korpela's widow and dependent children filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The administrative law judge determined that Korpela's death had not occurred within the course of his employment. On reconsideration, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board overturned the determination of the administrative law judge and held Korpela's death to be work related. Acting on the petition of IBM and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, its carrier, we issued our writ of review bringing the matter to this court.

Commercial Traveler Rule

"2] Employees whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises are held in the majority of jurisdictions to be...