Marmolejo v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations

• Citation: 285 N.W.2d 650,92 Wis.2d 674
• Decision Date: 04 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-297,77-297
• Parties: Manuel MARMOLEJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS, Mid-City Foundry, a Wisconsin corporation, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Page 650

285 N.W.2d 650

92 Wis.2d 674

Manuel MARMOLEJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS, Mid-City

Foundry, a Wisconsin corporation, and Employers

Insurance of Wausau, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 77-297.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Argued Nov. 6, 1979.

Decided Dec. 4, 1979.

Donald M. Lieb, Milwaukee (argued), for appellant; Prosser, Wiedabach & Quale, S. C., Milwaukee, on the brief.

Donald P. Johns, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), with whom on the brief was Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for Dept. of Industry, Labor and Human Relations.

COFFEY, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County confirming an order of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, defendant-respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the Department), wherein it affirmed the findings and order of the hearing examiner denying Manuel Marmolejo's (hereinafter the appellant), claim for worker's compensation.

The material facts of this case are undisputed and are contained in the hearing examiner's findings of fact. Manuel Marmolejo was employed by the Mid-City Foundry (hereinafter Mid-City), as a "clamper", ¹ and worked a regular shift commencing at 5:00 a.m. and ending between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., five days a week. When he arrived at work he would punch in at a time clock and then punch out at the end of the day. The appellant was given a daily half hour lunch break between noon and 12:30 p.m., but was not required to punch in or out at the time clock when he left for and returned from lunch. The appellant was paid on an hourly time rate but not compensated for the lunch break. Mid-City provided a lunchroom and a vending machine for use by its employees, however, the appellant did not make use of these facilities but went out to eat lunch almost daily.

On February 20, 1975 the appellant left the foundry as a passenger in a car driven by a co-employee for lunch at a tavern-restaurant located at 16th and Pierce Streets. While en route to the tavern-restaurant the co-employee's car was involved in an accident which caused multiple injuries to the appellant and prevented his return to work.

The appellant applied for worker's compensation benefits and his employer, Mid-City, denied that the injuries sustained in the auto accident grew out of or were incidental to his employment, and thus was not entitled to coverage under the Worker's Compensation Act. A hearing was held before an examiner for the department who denied coverage in the following language:

" . . . the applicant (MARMOLEJO) was not on the premises of the employer at the time of his injury; that the applicant's injury did not occur while he was performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment with the respondent; . . . ."

The hearing examiner's findings and order were upheld by the department and confirmed in the Circuit Court for Dane County. Judgment affirming the order of the Department was entered September 2, 1977. The appellant appeals from this judgment.

ISSUES :

1. Is an employee who is injured in an automobile accident off his employer's premises while voluntarily going to lunch performing services incidental to his employment so as to entitle him to worker's compensation benefits?

2. Is the denial of worker's compensation benefits to the appellant, in this case, a denial of his constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution?

On appeal the appellant contends that his injuries in the automobile accident occurred while performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment, within the meaning of sec. 102.03(1)(c) 1, Stats., ² and thus he was entitled to worker's compensation benefits. Specifically, the appellant contends he is entitled to compensation under the "personal comfort" doctrine.

The personal comfort doctrine was first recognized in Wisconsin in Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 159 Wis. 635, 150 N.W. 998 (1915); Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm., 160 Wis. 633, 152 N.W. 416 (1915). The doctrine was developed:

" . . . to cover the situation where an employee is injured while taking a brief pause from his labors to minister to the various necessities of life. Although technically the employee is performing no services for his employer in the sense that his actions do not contribute directly to the employer's profits, compensation is justified on the rationale that the employer does receive indirect benefits in the form of better work from a happy and rested workman, and on the theory that such a minor deviation does not take the employee out of his employment." Comment, Workmen's Compensation: The Personal Comfort Doctrine, 1960 Wis.L.Rev. 91.

The appellant argues that the act of eating lunch, such as in this case, even though away from his place of employment, ministers to his personal comfort (I.e., the employee's) and thus is incidental to his employment.

The personal comfort doctrine has been applied in many diverse fact situations as follows:

" 'Compensation has been allowed where an employee was getting a drink (Vennen v. New Dells L. Co., 161 Wis. 370, 154 N.W. 640; Widell Co. v. Industrial Comm., 180 Wis. 179, 192 N.W. 449); eating lunch on the premises (Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 159 Wis. 635, 150 N.W. 998; Racine Rubber Co. v. Industrial Comm., 165 Wis. 600, 162 N.W. 664); warming himself (Northwestern Iron Co. v. Industrial Comm., 160 Wis. 633, 152 N.W. 416); sleeping in place provided (Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm., 168 Wis. 381, 170 N.W. 366; John H. Kaiser Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm., 181 Wis. 513, 195 N.W. 329); visiting toilet (Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 159 Wis. 635, 150 N.W. 998); going for pay (Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co. v. Industrial Comm., 165 Wis. 586, 162 N.W. 921); riding on conveyance provided by master (Hackley-Phelps-Bonnell Co. v. Industrial Comm., 165 Wis. 586, 162 N.W. 921; Rock County v. Industrial Comm., 185 Wis. 134, 200 N.W. 657); while going from place to place on a city street (Schroeder & Daly Co. v. Industrial Comm., 169 Wis. 567, 173 N.W. 328; United States Cas. Co. v. Superior H. Co., 175 Wis. 162, 184 N.W. 694); making toolbox for own tools (Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Industrial Comm., 187 Wis. 53, 203 N.W. 737); millwright extinguishing fire (Belle City M.I. Co. v. Rowland, 170 Wis. 293, 174 N.W. 899).'

"Other cases in which it was held that the 'personal comfort' doctrine applied are Vilter Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 1927, 192 Wis. 362, 366, 212 N.W. 641 (repairman eating ice cream in an isolation hospital and contracting smallpox); Wisconsin Mut. Liability Co. v. Industrial Comm. 1930, 202 Wis. 428, 429, 232 N.W. 885 (employee sleeping near truck to which he had been assigned); Yawkey-Bissell Lumber Co. v. Industrial Comm. 1934, 215 Wis. 99, 102, 103, 253 N.W. 793 (self-medication in a lumber camp); Karlslyst v. Industrial Comm. 1943, 243 Wis. 612, 614, 11 N.W.2d 179 (urinating while standing on running board of moving truck)." American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 1 Wis.2d 261, 266-67, 83 N.W.2d 714, 717 (1957).

However, one characteristic of these applications of the personal comfort doctrine is that the injuries for which compensation is sought have occurred within the Time (I.e., during specific paid working hours) and Space (I.e., on the employer's premises) limitations of the person's employment:

" 'Employees who, within the time and space limits of their employment, engage in acts which minister to personal comfort do not thereby leave the course of employment, unless the extent of the departure is so great that an intent to abandon the job temporarily may be inferred, or unless, in some jurisdictions, the method chosen is so unusual and unreasonable that the conduct cannot be considered an incident of the employment.' " American Motors Corp. v. Industrial Comm., Supra at 265, 83 N.W.2d at 716, quoting Professor Arthur Larson, 1 Law of Workmen's Compensation, p. 297, sec. 21.00.

In the American Motors Corp. case the court allowed the employee to recover worker's compensation benefits for injuries received when he fell while climbing down from atop a stack of boxes where he was resting during his lunch hour on his employer's premises, even though the injuries occurred outside his specific hours of employment, I.e., the lunch hour. The court recognized that injuries to an employee occurring On the premises of the employer need not occur technically within the specific hours of employment in order to be compensable. As authority for this position the court quotes Professor Larson in his work, 1 Law of Workmen's Compensation Law, (sic) pp. 298, 299, sec. 21.21(a), where he states:

" 'Injuries occurring On the premises (his emphasis) during a regular lunch hour arise in the course of employment, even though the interval is technically outside the regular hours of employment in the sense that the worker receives no pay for that time and is in no degree under the control of the employer, being free to go where he pleases.

" 'There are at least four situations in which the course of employment goes beyond an employee's fixed hours of work: The time spent going and coming on the premises; an interval before working hours while waiting to begin or making preparations, and a similar interval after hours; regular unpaid rest periods taken on the premises, and Unpaid lunch hours on the premises. A definite pattern can be discerned here. In each instance the time, although strictly outside the fixed working hours, is closely contiguous to them; the activity to which that time is devoted is related to the employment, whether it takes the form of going or coming, preparing for work, or ministering to personal necessities such as food and rest; And, above all, the employee is within the spatial limits of his employment.' " (emphasis...