Title: Corbett v. Express Personnel
Citation: 1997 OK 40, 68OBJ1282, 936 P.2d 932
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 8, 1997

Corbett v. Express Personnel Annotate this Case Corbett v. Express Personnel 1997 OK 40 936 P.2d 932 68 OBJ 1282 Case Number: 86892 Decided: 04/08/1997 Mandate Issued: 05/08/1997 Supreme Court of Oklahoma PAUL CORBETT, Petitioner, v. EXPRESS PERSONNEL, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and the WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIV. 2 ¶0 Paul Corbett ( Corbett or claimant ) sought in the Workers' Compensation Court, Ozella M. Willis, trial judge, an award for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident while leaving the work station assigned to him by his employer, Express Personnel. The trial court and three-judge review panel denied compensation. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order as unsupported by competent evidence and remanded the claim for further proceedings. On certiorari sought by Express Personnel's petition, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE THREE-JUDGE REVIEW PANEL REINSTATED. Fred L. Boettcher Walt Brune Boettcher Law Offices, Inc. Ponca City, OK For Petitioner John A. McCaleb John B. Vera Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon Oklahoma City, For Respondent Opala, J. [936 P.2d 933] ¶1 We are asked to decide whether a claimant who is leaving the workplace on a personal errand may recover compensation for injuries, sustained in the employer's parking lot, which were not occasioned by any employer-created hazards. We answer in the negative. ¶2 Paul Corbett ( Corbett or claimant ) sought compensation after driving his motorcycle into a fence surrounding his work station's parking lot. At the time of the accident he was on the way to his bank. The trial court and the three-judge review panel denied Corbett's claim as not arising out of his employment. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the order. According to the appellate court, claimant was "injured when engaged in an activity arising out of the course of his employment--that of egressing the employer's parking lot" and his "motivation"--to run a personal errand during the injury-producing activity--should not be viewed as defeating the claim. ¶3 We hold that claimant's injuries arose out of his personal mission because the causative risks he encountered on his harm-dealing errand to the bank can be regarded neither as job-related nor as hazards created by the employer. THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION ¶4 Corbett had been employed by Express Personnel ( employer ) for nine or ten months as an assembler. On May 16, 1995 he left his assigned station at an employer- designated locale, started his motorcycle, and was attempting to pull out of the parking lot when he lost control of the vehicle and hit a fence upon the premises. According to his testimony, his departure occurred "just before lunch started." His undisputed purpose for the trip was to do personal business with his bank. ¶5 Claimant, who had injured both knees in the crash, received medical treatment. He pressed a claim for disability to his right knee, temporary and permanent. His employer responded by denying the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The trial judge agreed and the three-judge panel affirmed the order denying compensation. The appellate court vacated that order, concluding Corbett's exit from the parking lot during his lunch break was "causally connected to the duties of his employment" and his intended purpose for leaving was "irrelevant." On certiorari sought by Express Personnel, the employer urges the injuries for which compensation is sought are not connected with claimant's employment and the causative risks leading to his harm can be regarded neither as job-related nor as created by the employer. I. ¶6 THE RISK OF HARM THAT ATTENDED CLAIMANT'S TRIP TO THE BANK IS SOLELY AND PURELY PERSONAL; COMPENSABLE INJURY MUST ARISE OUT OF AND HENCE BE CAUSALLY CONNECTED TO THE HAZARDS OF ONE'S EMPLOYMENT ¶7 A compensation claimant must satisfy a two-pronged statutory test 1 by evidentiary showing that the bodily injuries for which benefits are sought 1 ) occurred "in the [936 P.2d 934] course of" the employment 2 and 2 ) "arose out of" the employment.3 These two requirements are separate and distinct. They must both be established before recovery may be allowed.4 Not all injuries that occur on the job are compensable. This is so because a connection must be shown between the encountered causative risk that resulted in the worker's harm and the conditions of his/her employment. 5 Risks purely personal--namely those which are not reasonably connected with the claimant's employment--are not compensable. 6 ¶8 When they occur on premises owned or controlled by the employer, injuries sustained by an employee while going to or from work may be compensable in certain circumstances if (a) the claimant's employment is shown to have a connection to the causative risk encountered, ¶9 Corbett left the workplace shortly before his lunch break began in order to conduct personal business with his bank. Claimant's exit from the premises was not within his employer's established break time for lunch nor was his departure on assignment for company business. His mission was purely personal. It cannot be attributed to his employment. ¶10 Even if the "in the course of employment" element were to be deemed satisfied by a [ 936 P.2d 935 ] worker's mere presence on the employer's premises when the accident occurred, Corbett's act of exiting from the parking lot on his personal errand was not one that "arose out of" his employment duties. ¶11 Whether an injury does arise out of and in the course of a worker's employment is ordinarily a question of fact. SUMMARY ¶12 Accidental harm stemming from risks purely personal and unconnected to employment is not compensable. 18 Corbett did not satisfy the law's requirement by showing his injury to have arisen out of employment. 19 The causative risk claimant encountered demonstrates no connection to his work duties. 20 There is ample support in competent evidence for the trial tribunal's finding that claimant's injury did not result from exposure to a risk incident to his employment. 21 ON CERTIORARI SOUGHT BY EXPRESS PERSONNEL'S PETITION, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE THREE-JUDGE REVIEW PANEL REINSTATED. ¶13 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J. FOOT