Opinion ID: 2211440
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: applying the traveling employee doctrine to this case comports with the spirit of the wdca

Text: It is well established that this Court should liberally construe the WDCA, so as to grant, rather than deny, benefits. Simkins v. General Motors Corp. (After Remand), 453 Mich. 703, 710-711, 556 N.W.2d 839 (1996). Denying benefits to employees simply because they leave their hotel rooms to eat while on a trip for their employers does not comport with this principle. Eversman's employer, who displaced him from home, should compensate him if he is injured when pursuing reasonable and necessary personal activities while traveling at the employer's request. The majority's rule allows employers to impose the inconveniences of being away from home and family while not accepting responsibility for injuries that arise from the necessities of travel. While the majority seems to focus on the fact that Eversman spent his day drinking and shooting pool, op., p. 866, it does not conclude that Eversman's intoxication caused his injuries. As the Court of Appeals correctly points out, there is not enough evidence to support such a conclusion. 224 Mich.App. at 227, 568 N.W.2d 387. MCL 418.305; MSA 17.237(305) precludes compensation for injuries [i]f the employee is injured by reason of his intentional and wilful misconduct.... The evidence does show that Eversman was intoxicated. But it does not show that his injuries arose as a result of intoxication. If it did, then M.C.L. § 418.305; MSA 17.237(305) would compel a different result. [6]