McDonald v. Richardson County
| Decision Date | 28 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 30428 |
| Citation | 280 N.W. 456,135 Neb. 150 |
| Parties | BYRD MCDONALD, APPELLEE, v. RICHARDSON COUNTY, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Richardson county: VIRGIL FALLOON, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An employee leaving the premises of her employer in the usual and customary way after her work is ended is within the course of her employment within the meaning of the workmen's compensation law.
2. Walking to and from the street and a building where one is employed is a necessary incident of the employment, and an injury sustained in so doing is compensable.
Appeal from District Court, Richardson County; Falloon, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Byrd McDonald claimant, for injuries sustained when she fell while walking down a driveway leading from the courthouse where she was employed to the street, opposed by Richardson County employer. From a judgment awarding compensation, the county appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
J. H. Falloon and Paul P. Chaney, for appellant.
Wiltse & Wiltse, contra.
Heard before ROSE, EBERLY, DAY, PAINE and MESSMORE, JJ., and KROGER, District Judge.
This is a compensation case. Richardson county appeals from an award to an injured employee. The evidence is undisputed. Byrd McDonald was employed as a clerical assistant to the county engineer at a salary of $ 75 a month. All of her duties were performed within the county courthouse. After finishing her work on February 20, 1937, a snowy and stormy evening, she left the courthouse to go home, intending to complete an errand of her own upon her way to her home. While walking down an automobile driveway leading from the courthouse to the street, which was the customary way for pedestrians to leave the grounds, she fell and sustained a double fracture of her left leg. She was found to be totally disabled for a period of thirteen weeks, and was unable to return to her work until May 22, 1937. She contracted medical, surgical and hospital expenses of $ 74.75.
The only controverted question is: Did the appellee suffer an accident and sustain injuries arising out of her employment compensable under the workmen's compensation law? It is contended by the county that the employee had left the courthouse where the office in which she worked is located, and that the injury did not arise in the course of her employment.
It does not seem that the case of Sentor v. City of Lincoln, 124 Neb. 403, 246 N.W. 924, is helpful to us in the solution of the problem presented. Sentor had reported for work at a building of the city maintained by it as a headquarters of the street department for the storage of tools and equipment. He was given a shovel and sent to do a certain task of shoveling snow. Sentor's walk along the street was incidental to and a part of his work. He was injured in the course of his employment, not because he was upon the city's streets, but because he was engaged in the work of his employer.
It is of course the general rule that if an employee is injured while going to or from his work to his home (Siedlik v. Swift & Co., 122 Neb. 99, 239 N.W. 466), or is injured while absent from the employment for lunch (De Porte v. State Furniture Co., 129 Neb. 282, 261 N.W. 419), or is injured while he leaves his work solely on a personal errand (McNaught v. Standard Oil Co., 128 Neb. 517, 259 N.W. 517; Bergantzel v. Union Transfer Co., 124 Neb. 200, 245 N.W. 593), the injury does not arise out of nor in the course of the employment.
In the instant case the employee was not engaged in the business of her employer. She was leaving the place of employment, but she was still upon the premises of the employer. She was on the courthouse grounds in the course of going home. One the way home she intended to engage in her own personal business. She did not live in the courthouse, and it was necessary for her to go home. She was leaving the premises of her employer by a route commonly used by the employees of the county. She fell and suffered an injury before she had reached the street.
In Kasari v. Industrial Commission, 125 Ohio St. 410 181 N.E. 809, it was held: "Traversing the zone between the entrance of the employer's premises and the plant where an employee is employed is one of the hazards of the employment." A well-recognized annotator, in considering this case, states: "By the weight of authority injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from his place of work upon premises owned or controlled by his employer are generally deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment within the workmen's compensation acts, and this rule is supported by the later cases." 82 A. L. R. 1044. Cases are cited from many jurisdictions...
To continue reading
Request your trial