Elfelt v. Red Owl Stores

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Elfelt v. Red Owl Stores

206 N.W.2d 370, 296 Minn. 41, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1152

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 30, 1973

Docket43774

StatusPublished

This text of 206 N.W.2d 370 (Elfelt v. Red Owl Stores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elfelt v. Red Owl Stores, 206 N.W.2d 370, 296 Minn. 41, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1152 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

*42 Pee Curiam.

Certiorari on the relation of employee to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying compensation.

Employee challenges the commission’s finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

After punching out for his scheduled supper break, employee left the grocery area in which he worked and went to the sporting goods department to meet a fellow employee for supper. Employee followed the second employee to the timeclock location. When he reached the doorway in the rear of the sporting goods department, the employee jumped up to touch his hand on the rafter above the doorway. In doing so, the ring on his right ring finger caught between two bolts which fastened an electrical conduit to the wall. He sustained an injury which resulted in the loss of that finger.

Reasonable means of ingress and egress were provided for the employees. Employee’s unfortunate, but improvident, act created a hazard in an otherwise safe route. This action took him outside the scope of his employment. Corcoran v. Fitzgerald Brothers, 239 Minn. 38, 58 N. W. 2d 744 (1953). The commission’s finding that the injury did not arise out of employment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*42 Pee Curiam.

Certiorari on the relation of employee to review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denying compensation.

Employee challenges the commission’s finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

After punching out for his scheduled supper break, employee left the grocery area in which he worked and went to the sporting goods department to meet a fellow employee for supper. Employee followed the second employee to the timeclock location. When he reached the doorway in the rear of the sporting goods department, the employee jumped up to touch his hand on the rafter above the doorway. In doing so, the ring on his right ring finger caught between two bolts which fastened an electrical conduit to the wall. He sustained an injury which resulted in the loss of that finger.

Reasonable means of ingress and egress were provided for the employees. Employee’s unfortunate, but improvident, act created a hazard in an otherwise safe route. This action took him outside the scope of his employment. Corcoran v. Fitzgerald Brothers, 239 Minn. 38, 58 N. W. 2d 744 (1953). The commission’s finding that the injury did not arise out of employment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.W.2d 370, 296 Minn. 41, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elfelt-v-red-owl-stores-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack