Kenney v. Rockingham School Dist.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 1175,1175
• Citation: 123 Vt. 344,190 A.2d 702
• Parties: Lois C. KENNEY v. ROCKINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 702

190 A.2d 702

123 Vt. 344

Lois C. KENNEY v. ROCKINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

No. 1175.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

March 6, 1963.

Reargument Denied April 9, 1963.

Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Rutland, for plaintiff.

Webber, Costello & French, Rutland, for defendant.

Before HULBURD, C. J., and HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.

HULBURD, Chief Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which the Commissioner of Industrial Relations has certified to us for review the ever-troublesome question of whether or not the claimant was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.

As early as 1916, Lord Wrenbury said, 'The few and seemingly simple words 'arising out of and in the course of the employment' have been the fruitful (or fruitless) source of a mass of decisions turning upon nice distinctions and supported by refinements so subtle as to leave the mind of the reader in a maze of confusion. From their number counsel can, in most cases, cite what seems to be an authority for resolving in his favor, on whichever side he may be, the question in dispute.' Herbert v. Samuel Fox & Co. (1916) 1 A.C. 405, 419. This thought has been echoed in Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 U.S. 469, 479, 67 S.Ct. 801, 807, 91 L.Ed. 1028 (1947) where the court said, 'The statutory phrase 'arising out of and in the course of employment,' which appears in most workmen's compensation laws, is deceptively simple and litigiously prolific.'

With all this in mind, we turn to the facts of this case as found by the Commissioner of Industrial Relations. The claimant was employed by the defendant District as a teacher of Home Economics, General Science and Family Living in the Bellows Falls High School. While so employed, she decided to enroll in an adult sewing class which was to be held evenings for the general public for those desiring to take the course. It was to be given in the Bellows Falls High School building and in the same room in which she taught in the daytime. It concerned one of the very subjects that she, herself, had to teach. She signed up as a student in this class at the superintendent's office just as others did, and she paid the same small fee which all were charged. Some of those thus enrolled were mothers of her pupils. She was not required to take the course by her employer but voluntarily enrolled for the purpose of improving her teaching ability and to become better acquainted with some of the mothers so that she would have a better knowledge of their thoughts and desires with respect to the subject that she was teaching to their children. Following one of the evening sessions of this class, the claimant stayed behind, after the other members had left, to clear off the tables and put the room in order before leaving. Having done this, she proceeded to leave. After closing the door behind her, she started down some steps. They were icy, and she slipped and fell. It was for the injury thus received that the Commissioner of Industrial Relations awarded compensation. He held that 'the incident when she slipped while leaving the employer's building was and constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment.'

In looking for help on this problem from other decided cases, it is necessary to have an eye for many things since the nature, conditions, obligations and incidents of the employment all have a bearing on the proper determination of a given case. See Coswell's Case, 305 Mass. 500, 502, 26 N.E.2d 328, 330; and see Workmen's Compensation: Half Century of Developments--Horovitz, in Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 41, P. 1.17 for tendencies of the courts in present-day workmen's compensation cases. Thus it was said in a case in which a school teacher was claimant, 'His accident was subject to a different rule than are accidents of those who work by the hour or day. The duties he owed to his employer were continuous and his compensation was reckoned by the year.' Williams v. School City of Winchester, 104 Ind.App. 83, 10 N.E.2d 314. Accordingly, a case such as Kneeland v. Parker, 100 Vt. 92, 135 A. 8, 48 A.L.R. 1396, involving a teamster, where the accident occurred before the day's work had started, is not applicable to the situation before us. The same can be said of Bundy v. State of Vt. Highway Dept., 102 Vt. 84, 146 A. 68.

In Rothfarb v. Camp Awanee, Inc., 116 Vt. 172, 178, 71 A.2d 569, 573, this Court stated, '[A]n injury received by an employee while voluntarily engaged in some activity solely for the pleasure, convenience, or benefit of himself is not ordinarily compensable as arising out of the employment.' But in the same case it was said, 'An injury suffered by an employee while performing an act for the mutual benefit of himself and his employer is usually compensable as arising out of and in the course of the employment, even though the advantage to the employer is slight.'

In addition to the foregoing it must be kept in mind that this was an injury sustained at the work-situs while the employee was leaving the employer's building after having been in the building for the purpose of doing something of mutual benefit to herself and to her employer.

Compensation has been allowed for injuries sustained while the claimant was not even at the work-situs, but was attending or traveling to and from meetings, conferences and the like. As stated by Schneider, 'Where the trip or attendance is one which the employer ordered or directed, or is for the sole benefit of the employer, or is to the mutual advantage of both employer and his employee, compensation may be recovered.' Schneider--Workmen's Compensation, Vol. 7, § 1665. For example, compensation was awarded where a high school principal received injuries while traveling in response to an invitation from the registrar of the state university to visit the university and confer with freshmen students who had been graduated from his school as part of a plan for preparing the students for university work. His attendance for this purpose was wholly voluntary but it was regarded as incident to his employment. Mann v. Board of Education, 266 Mich. 271, 253 N.W. 294. Other cases involving educators in which varied factors play a part are; Howell v. Kingston T. P. School...