Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service Co.

JurisdictionOregon
PartiesIn the Matter of the Compensation of The Beneficiaries of Rodney Rosencrantz, Deceased. Rose ROSENCRANTZ, Respondent, v. INSURANCE SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant.
Citation467 P.2d 664,2 Or.App. 225
CourtOregon Court of Appeals
Decision Date09 April 1970

Daryll E. Klein, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were McMenamin, Blyth, Jones & Joseph, Portland.

Harl H. Haas, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Don G. Swink and Bailey, Swink & Haas, Portland.

Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.

FOLEY, Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which the workman's widow claims benefits arising out of the death of her husband, Rodney Rosencrantz. He was employed by defendant insurance company. One of the accounts he handled for the company was that of the Three Star Restaurant and Lounge. On February 8, 1968, he was struck and killed by a passing automobile as he was crossing the highway to enter the Three Star Restaurant and Lounge. Defendant contends decedent was on a private and personal errand when he was killed. The widow contends he was in the course of his employment. The hearing officer found that decedent had three purposes in visiting the Three Star: (1) to furnish funds to a woman acquaintance who was an employe of Three Star with which to purchase flowers for her grandfather's funeral; (2) to reimburse the Three Star for funds advanced by it to the same woman; and (3) to collect from one of the owners of Three Star, checks for substantial arrearages due defendant for insurance coverage. The record supports these factual findings of the hearing officer. He then concluded that decedent's fatal accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. On appeal the Workmen's Compensation Board and the circuit court affirmed the hearing officer.

The question before this court on De novo review, then, is the same as that presented to the hearing officer, the Workmen's Compensation Board and the circuit court, i.e., whether decedent's death resulted from injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. To be compensable, the claim must arise both out of and in the course of the workman's employment. ORS 656.002(6); Larsen v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 135 Or. 137, 295 P. 195 (1931). Of course, a trip that is purely personal does not arise out of and in the course of employment. However, if the trip is one of dual purpose, both business and personal, then the injury may arise out of and in the course of employment under certain circumstances. 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law 294.3, § 18.00 (1968), states the test this way:

'Injury during a trip which serves both a business and a personal purpose is within the course of employment if the trip involves the performance of a service for the employer which would have caused the trip to be taken by someone even if it had not coincided with the personal journey * * *.'

Larson goes on to say in § 18.12 at 294.5--294.10:

'The basic dual-purpose rule, accepted by the great majority of jurisdictions, may be summarized as follows: when a trip serves both business and personal purposes, it is a personal trip if the trip would have been made in spite of the failure or absence of the business purpose and would have been dropped in the event of failure of the private purpose, though the business errand remained undone; it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Marshall v. Cosgrave, Kester, Crowe, Gidley and Lagesen
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1992
    ...P.2d 229 (1933); Bebout v. SAIF, 22 Or.App. 1, 537 P.2d 563, aff'd 273 Or. 487, 541 P.2d 1293 (1975); see also Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, 2 Or.App. 225, 467 P.2d 664 (1970). This case differs from Hendrickson v. Lewis, supra, and Gumbrecht v. SAIF, 21 Or.App. 389, 534 P.2d 1189 (1975......
  • Allen v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 1977
    ...purpose, one of which was the employer's, because the trip would not been taken for the employer's purposes. Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, 2 Or.App. 225, 467 P.2d 664 (1970). 4. The finding of the circuit court that the lunch hour was in furtherance of the employer's interest in having ......
  • Gumbrecht v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1975
    ...claimant argues is applicable in this case is the so-called 'dualpurposes' rule. This rule was applied in Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, 2 Or.App. 225, 467 P.2d 664 (1970), where this court '* * * Of course, a trip that is purely personal does not arise out of and in the course of employ......
  • Hansen v. State Acc. Ins. Fund
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1977
    ...the accident takes place * * *.' See also Larson v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 135 Or. 137, 295 P. 195 (1931); Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, 2 Or.App. 225, 467 P.2d 664 (1970).2 Casper v. SAIF, 13 Or.App. 464, 511 P.2d 451 (1973); Etchison v. SAIF, 8 Or.App. 395, 494 P.2d 455 (1972); Jordan ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT