Teffer v. Twin Falls School District No. 411

Idaho Supreme Court

Teffer v. Twin Falls School District No. 411

631 P.2d 610, 102 Idaho 439, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 363

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1981

Docket13567

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 631 P.2d 610 (Teffer v. Twin Falls School District No. 411) 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

Teffer v. Twin Falls School District No. 411, 631 P.2d 610, 102 Idaho 439, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 363 (Idaho 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

BAKES, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission denying appellant Russell Teffer’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits. The commission held that Teffer’s accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as required by I.C. § 72-102(14)(a).

Teffer began employment as a custodian at Twin Falls High School on March 6,1978. His work shift began at 2:30 p. m. and ended at 11:00 or 11:30 p. m., depending upon the length of lunch break taken. On April 11, 1978, Teffer completed his work before his shift ended. He and other custodians began playing basketball soon after 10:00 p. m. About twenty or twenty-five minutes later, Teffer injured his knee. Pri- or to that time, Teffer had used the gym facilities on about two occasions.

At the time he was hired, Teffer’s supervisor told him that he could use the gym or weight room “after work.” The supervisor testified that to him “after work” meant after hours. Teffer testified that he understood it to mean after he had completed his assigned tasks. According to Teffer’s supervisor and the district personnel director, school district policy did not permit employees to use gym facilities during working hours.

Whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment is a question of fact to be resolved by the Industrial Commission under the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404 (1946). We are statutorily and constitutionally compelled to defer to the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact where supported by substantial and competent evidence. Idaho Const., Art. 5, § 9; I.C. § 72-732. See, e. g., Sykes v. C. P. Clare & Co., 100 Idaho 761, 605 P.2d 939 (1980).

In denying Teffer’s claim, the Industrial Commission and its referee cited the following factors in support of its decision: recre[440]*440ational activities were not authorized by the employer during work hours; the right to use gym facilities was not used as inducement for employment or as compensation to the employees; the employer’s policy of allowing employees to use the facilities was for the purpose of employee morale; and the employer received no other substantial benefit from such policy.

The above findings are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission. Costs to respondent.

McFADDEN, DONALDSON and SHEPARD, JJ., concur.

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

BAKES, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Commission denying appellant Russell Teffer’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits. The commission held that Teffer’s accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as required by I.C. § 72-102(14)(a).

Teffer began employment as a custodian at Twin Falls High School on March 6,1978. His work shift began at 2:30 p. m. and ended at 11:00 or 11:30 p. m., depending upon the length of lunch break taken. On April 11, 1978, Teffer completed his work before his shift ended. He and other custodians began playing basketball soon after 10:00 p. m. About twenty or twenty-five minutes later, Teffer injured his knee. Pri- or to that time, Teffer had used the gym facilities on about two occasions.

At the time he was hired, Teffer’s supervisor told him that he could use the gym or weight room “after work.” The supervisor testified that to him “after work” meant after hours. Teffer testified that he understood it to mean after he had completed his assigned tasks. According to Teffer’s supervisor and the district personnel director, school district policy did not permit employees to use gym facilities during working hours.

Whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment is a question of fact to be resolved by the Industrial Commission under the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404 (1946). We are statutorily and constitutionally compelled to defer to the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact where supported by substantial and competent evidence. Idaho Const., Art. 5, § 9; I.C. § 72-732. See, e. g., Sykes v. C. P. Clare & Co., 100 Idaho 761, 605 P.2d 939 (1980).

In denying Teffer’s claim, the Industrial Commission and its referee cited the following factors in support of its decision: recre[440]*440ational activities were not authorized by the employer during work hours; the right to use gym facilities was not used as inducement for employment or as compensation to the employees; the employer’s policy of allowing employees to use the facilities was for the purpose of employee morale; and the employer received no other substantial benefit from such policy.

The above findings are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission. Costs to respondent.

McFADDEN, DONALDSON and SHEPARD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 P.2d 610, 102 Idaho 439, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teffer-v-twin-falls-school-district-no-411-idaho-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack