Opinion ID: 1350430
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In the course of.

Text: An injury arises in the course of the employment when the injury and the employment coincide as to time, place, and circumstances. Bailey, 576 N.W.2d at 338. An injury occurs in the course of employment when it is within the period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be in performing his duties, and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Waterhouse Water Conditioning, Inc. v. Waterhouse, 561 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Iowa 1997) (citation omitted). All three conditionstime, place, and circumstancesmust be met for a claimant to receive workers' compensation benefits. 82 Am.Jur.2d Workers' Compensation § 270, at 267. As is true with the arising out of requirement, injuries received by an employee while voluntarily engaged in some activity having no essential relationship to, or connection with, the employment and undertaken solely for the benefit of the claimant do not arise in the course of employment. Id. § 281, at 281-82. Meade points out that the definition of in the course of employment demands that the injury arise within the time and space boundaries of the employment and in the course of an activity whose purpose is related to the employment. He argues that the district court erred when it focused on Ries's status at the time of the injury. The proper focus, Meade contends, should be on what caused the injuryRies's actions in attempting to inflate the tire for his own benefit. Thus, Meade concludes, Ries was not doing anything within the course of employment by attempting to inflate his tire. That activity, Meade asserts, was not related to his employment. Ries, like the district court, focuses on his actions at the time of Meade's injury. Ries argues he was acting in furtherance of his employer's business when he assisted Miles. He argues further that his actions benefited Swiss Valley because Miles would have needed to find another employee to assist him. Therefore, Ries concludes, he was acting in the course of his employment by furthering Swiss Valley's interest in maintaining its vehicles. We agree with Meade that the proper focus should be on what caused the injury. We have already determined that the incident causing the injury was the exploding tire and that incident is directly related to Ries's inflating the tire. This activity was done at a time when Ries was not on duty. Therefore the time requirement necessary for meeting the in the course of employment requirement was lacking. Additionally, Ries was performing the tire-inflating activity for his own personal benefit rather than to further his employer's business. Therefore the employment-related element necessary for the in the course of requirement was also lacking. We conclude that had Ries been injured in the same accident, his injury would not have arisen in the course of employment. The district court also erred in concluding otherwise as to this requirement.