Hansen v. Superior Products Co.

146 P.2d 335, 65 Idaho 457, 1944 Ida. LEXIS 72
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1944
DocketNo. 7158.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 146 P.2d 335 (Hansen v. Superior Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hansen v. Superior Products Co., 146 P.2d 335, 65 Idaho 457, 1944 Ida. LEXIS 72 (Idaho 1944).

Opinion

AILSHIE, J.

This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Accident Board granting respondent compensation for medical and burial expenses incurred as the result of the accidental death of Henry A. Hansen, her husband, also for payment of compensation for the benefit of herself and three minor children. The board made very full and *459 detailed findings covering all the facts in the case and we are setting out the material findings, essential to a decision of this appeal, in a footnote hereto. 1

The only error assigned by appellant is that the “Board erred in finding that the occurrence whereby Henry A. Hansen was struck by an automobile, was an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.” It is claimed by appellant that, where an injury results from an accident to an employee while going to or from work, from or to his home, such accident does no.t arise out of and in the course of his employment as that clause is found in the Compensation Act (Sec. 43-1001, I.C.A.). The prevailing rule to be gathered from the authorities is stated by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Mitchell v. Ball Bros. Co., 97 Ind. App. 642, 186 N.E. 900, as follows:

“There is a general rule of law that a workman does not lose his character as a workman, while eating his lunch, on his employer’s premises, at a place generally regarded to be safe — with his employer’s consent — while he does lose his character as a workman when he leaves the premises of his employer to eat his lunch. See Boyd, Compensation, p. 1060. For long list of lunch hour cases see Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Law (2d Ed.) sec. 276, p. 843.” (Emphasis supplied.)

*460 Schneider, vol. 1, Workmen’s Compensation Law (2d Ed.), at p. 752 (sec. 276), in commenting on an accident which occurred to a motor driver and the award made in that case in favor of the workman, says:

“It is wholly unlike those where accidents occur during the noon hour, when employees are on their way to or from the plant to get their noonday meals. In that class of cases injuries are received during a definite period set apart as belonging exclusively to employees, during which they may go where they choose and do what they please, subject to no orders from their employers and freed from all duty or responsibility in reference to their employment.”

The following are a few of the many cases holding to the same effect: Lincoln Traction Co. v. Reason, (Neb.) 10 N.W. (2d) 344; Mitchell v. Ball Bros., 97 Ind. App. 642, 186 N.E. 900; Banks v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., (Texas Civ. App.) 78 S.W. (2d) 660; Ocean Accident and Guaranty Corp. v. Farr, 180 Ga. App. 266, 178 S.E. 728; Gallman v. Springs Mills et al., (S.C.) 22 S.E. (2d) 715; Reading v. Indus. Comm., 70 Ohio App. 540, 46 N.E. (2d) 673; Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Dray age Co., (Mo. App.) 171 S.W. (2d) 781; California Casualty Indemn. Exchange v. Indus. Acc. Comm., (Cal. App.) 125 P. (2d) 63; Walker v. Hyde, 43 Ida. 625, 631, 253 P. 1104.

There are cases, however, holding that:

“It would be taking too technical a view of the law to *461 say that a pause in the actual course of his work by an employee for the purpose of eating is a break in his employment from the time he stops work to the time when he begins again.” (Desautel v. North Dakota Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 72 N.D. 35, 4 N.W. (2d) 581, at 583; 141 A.L.R. 858; Bollard v. Engel, 278 N.Y. 463, 17 N.E. (2d) 130, 254 App. Div. 162, 4 N.Y. Supp. (2d) 363, 365; to like effect see also, Manchester St. Ry. v. Barrett, 265 F. 557; Fisher v. Tidewater B. Co., 96 N.J. Law 103, 114 Atl. 150 [aff. 97 N.J.L. 324, 116 Atl. 924],

So it has also been held that, where contract of employment included “free transportation” to or from employee’s work, the “time of transportation is in course of employment.” (Fisher v. Tidewater B. Co., supra.) Likewise, where employer approved use of way of ingress and egress to and from place of work. (Flanagan v. Webster & Webster, 107 Conn. 502, 142 Atl. 201; see also, Dutson v. Idaho Power Co., 57 Ida. 386, 393, 65 P. (2d) 720.)

Here the case may well be said to be parallel in reason with the cases where employee was seeking shelter from storm or responding to the demands of nature. See I Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation (2d ed.), sec. 276, p. 853. (See also comment in Zeier v. Boise Transfer Co., 43 Ida. 549, at 555, 254 P. 209; also 71 C.J., sec. 443, p. 713, notes 44 (b) and (c).

*462 In comparing the recitation of facts contained in some of the cases cited with the facts in the instant case, we are forced to the conclusion that this is a “borderline” case. Here we have a case, the facts of which place it at the dividing line between liability and non-liability. It skirts the “course of employment” rule just where it is beginning to fade out and at the same point contacts the “lunch hour” rule just as the latter begins to appear. It is thought, however, that the following facts and attending circumstances peculiar to this case collectively tend to characterize it as having arisen “in the course of employment” of the workman:

(a) Employee was an “extra driver”, subject to call at any hour of the day or night;
(b) Although off master’s premises when accident occurred, he was traveling where master reasonably expected him to travel and with master’s consent ;
(c) He was traveling on master’s time under “pay per hour”;
(d) Master provided no means of supplying lunch to employees on the premises;
(e) Employee’s next schedule was a night run arid he had not changed from his driver’s clothes and had not made *463 his daily report or turned in his “punch” and “coin change box”;
(f) Employee had not had his evening meal;
(g) At time of accident, Hansen was on way from station to place where “transportation was furnished him by his employer.”

This case is decided upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances and is in no way intended as a departure from the commonly designated “lunch hour” rule. The case is attended with some doubt as to just which side of the dividing line it should be judged to fall. In that circumstance, we resolve the doubt in favor of the workman. (Stover v. Washington County, 63 Ida. 145, 152, 118 P. (2d) 63, and cases cited.)

The order of the Board is affirmed with costs to respondent.

Holden, C. J., Givens and Dunlap, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Weeks v. Oneida County
Idaho Supreme Court, 2025
Dinius v. Loving Care and More, Inc.
990 P.2d 738 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1999)
McClure v. General Motors Corp.
289 N.W.2d 631 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1980)
McClure v. General Motors
289 N.W.2d 631 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1980)
Clark v. Daniel Morine Construction Co.
559 P.2d 293 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1977)
Diffendaffer v. Clifton
430 P.2d 497 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1967)
Curtis v. Rivas
38 Haw. 384 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 P.2d 335, 65 Idaho 457, 1944 Ida. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-superior-products-co-idaho-1944.