Voight v. Rettinger Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 51373.,51373.
• Citation: Voight v. Rettinger Transp., Inc., 306 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. 1981)
• Parties: Paul C. VOIGHT, Relator, v. RETTINGER TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Respondents, and Hennepin County Welfare Department, Relator.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

306 N.W.2d 133 (1981)

Paul C. VOIGHT, Relator, v.RETTINGER TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Respondents, and Hennepin County Welfare Department, Relator.

No. 51373.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 5, 1981.

Abrams & Spector and John Horvei, Minneapolis, for Voight.

Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Minneapolis, for Hennepin County Welfare Dept.

Chadwick, Johnson & Bridell and John R. Bridell, Minneapolis, for respondents.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

AMDAHL, Justice.

This case is before the Court upon a writ of certiorari to review a decision of a divided Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals reversing the compensation judge's award of benefits to an injured employee.The court of appeals held that the employee's injuries did not arise out of his employment.We reverse that determination and remand this matter to the court of appeals with directions to reinstate the findings and award of the compensation judge.¹

The material facts giving rise to this controversy are not in dispute.Employee Voight was hired by Rettinger Transportation, Inc. to drive a school bus in the Orono School District on a set route during fixed hours of work.When he began his employment, the employee was informed that occasionally he would be given the opportunity to make additional income on special charter trips.

On November 7, 1975 at the employer's request, the employee agreed to make a weekend charter run to Camp Castaway located approximately 220 miles north of the Twin Cities.The employee received a flat rate of $75.00 and was told that meals and lodging would be provided at the camp over the weekend.Three other drivers, Don Oestreich, Gerald Ross and Steven Alger also drove buses to Camp Castaway on the weekend of November 7th.

On these weekend charters, drivers were to transport campers to Camp Castaway on Friday evening, sweep out and refuel the buses on Saturday morning at Detroit Lakes, located approximately 14 miles from the camp, and make the return trip on Sunday at noon.Refueling the buses on Saturday typically took only two hours and drivers had considerable free time to do as they wished.It was customary for drivers to go to Detroit Lakes for dinner, drinks, shopping or a movie on lay-over time.The employer was aware that drivers often went into town for meals or recreation and acquiesced in the practice.Drivers, however, were not reimbursed for any expenses they incurred.

On Saturday, November 8, 1975, after servicing the buses and returning to camp, the four drivers agreed to go into town for dinner instead of eating at the camp.Because the employer prohibited the drivers from taking buses into town other than for refueling, Oestreich arranged to borrow a vehicle.The four drivers proceeded to Erie Junior's Bar and Restaurant located three miles from Detroit Lakes, arriving at approximately 6:00 p.m.

After drinks and dinner, Ross and Oestreich decided to go to a movie.Alger and the employee chose to stay at the bar and the other drivers agreed to meet them there after the movie at approximately 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. to give them a ride back to the camp.

At the bar, Alger and the employee met Senn and Boyer who were deer hunting in the area.After some discussion, Senn and Boyer agreed to give the two drivers a ride to the Broken Wheel, a bar and restaurant located approximately three miles from Erie Junior's, where there was a live band.

The two drivers stayed at the Broken Wheel for approximately two hours and had some drinks.Alger solicited a ride from Boyer and Senn at approximately 10:30 p. m. to go back to Erie Junior's to meet Oestreich and Ross.By that time, the bartender had refused to serve Boyer any more drinks.Boyer, Senn and Alger proceeded to Senn's automobile in the parking lot and noticed that the employee was not with them.Alger and Senn went back to the bar, and informed employee that they were ready to leave.Boyer had remained in the car on the passenger side of the front seat.As the employee approached the right rear door of the automobile and was about to enter, Boyer leaned out the door and began firing a pistol in an attempt to generate some excitement and inadvertently shot the employee.

It is undisputed that the shooting was not motivated by a dispute or any personal animosity between the two men.The evidence clearly supports the court of appeals' finding that the shooting was accidental.Additionally, the record is devoid of evidence indicating that the employee was intoxicated at the time that he was injured.

The employee testified that, but for the charter trip to Camp Castaway, he would not have been at Erie Junior's or the Broken Wheel on the night he was shot.As a result of the gunshot wound, the employee has been rendered a quadriplegic.

The compensation judge found that at the time of the accident, the employee was pursuing the usual and reasonable interests of a driver his age on lay-over time, that the assault was not motivated by personal reasons and that the injury sustained was inherent in his employment.Concluding that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, the compensation judge awarded the employee compensation for permanent partial and permanent total disability.A divided court of appeals reversed² and this appeal ensued.

Two issues are presented on appeal: (1) whether compensation is barred in the instant case by virtue of the exclusionary clause contained in Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16(1980), and (2) whether employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

I.ASSAULTS BY THIRD PERSONS

Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16(1980) excludes personal injury:

caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment.

(Emphasis added).The court of appeals cited a number of cases in which compensation was denied based upon the above exclusionary clause.Those cases, however, involved situations in which the third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee and the motivation was purely personal to the employee and not related to his employment.DuFloth v. City of Monticello,308 Minn. 451, 241 N.W.2d 645(1976);Jones v. Schiek's Cafe,277 Minn. 273, 152 N.W.2d 356(1967)(injury sustained by claimant in an attack upon the fellow employee held not to have arisen out of unusual pressures inherent in the nature of working relationship);Lareau v. E.L. Murphy TruckingCo., 29 Minn.Workers'Comp. Dec. 395(1977)(claimant intentionally shot by third person following altercation in restaurant denied compensation).

The evidence in the instant case is undisputed that the shooting was inadvertent and not motivated by personal animosity between Boyer and the employee.Therefore, as correctly noted by the dissenting court of appeals judge, the above-cited cases are inapposite and the provision contained in Minn.Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16(1980) is inapplicable to this case.³

II.THE "ARISING OUT OF" AND "IN THE COURSE OF" REQUIREMENT

As a condition precedent to recovery under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act,§§ 176.011-.82(1980), an employee has the burden of showing that an injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.⁴MacNamara v. Jennie H. Boyd Trust,287 Minn. 163, 166, 177 N.W.2d 398, 400(1970);Ulve v. Bemidji Cooperative Creamery Association,267 Minn. 412, 419, 127 N.W.2d 147, 152(1964).The phrase "arising out of" refers to the causal connection between the employment and the injury whereas the phrase "in the course of" refers to time, place and circumstances of the accident.Swenson v. Zacher,264 Minn. 203, 118 N.W.2d 786(1963);Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission,257 Minn. 54, 56, 99 N.W.2d 915, 917(1959).Bradt, An Examination of the "Arising Out of" and "In the Course of" Requirements Under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Law, 6 Wm. MitchellL.Rev. 533, 618(1980).

The "arising out of" and "in the course of" requirements have been liberally applied in traveling employee cases.The general rule is that an employee whose work entails travel away from the employer's premises is, in most circumstances, under continuous workers' compensation coverage from the time he leaves home until he returns.Snyder v. General Paper Corp.,277 Minn. 376, 379, 152 N.W.2d 743, 746(1967);1A A.Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 25.00(1979).A bus driver who is required to be away from home overnight is in a position substantially analogous to that of a traveling salesperson and therefore comes within the general rule of continuous coverage.

The employer argues that the injury in question is noncompensable because the employee deviated from his employment for personal reasons at the time he was injured.Because the employee's trip to the Broken Wheel was for personal recreation rather than for business purposes, it is argued that he was not in the course of his employment and consequently he is not entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The employer's arguments must be considered in light of the rule enunciated in Epp v. Midwestern Machinery Co.,296 Minn. 231, 208 N.W.2d 87(1973).In Epp, an over-the-road truckdriver was required to lay-over at a specific location due to a late shipment.The driver was killed while crossing a highway from a tavern to his hotel at approximately 2:00 a.m.In upholding an award of compensation, we stated:

Where * * * an employee is directed by his employer to remain at a certain locale on behalf of the employer for a specified time or until directed otherwise, "the rule applied is simply that the employee is not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so the risk inherent in such activity is an incident of his employment."

Id. at 234, 208 N.W.2d at 89(emphasis...