Opinion ID: 1350430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court's application of the test.

Text: In applying the arising out of and in the course of employment test, the district court focused on several factors. First, the court noted that Ries's purpose in being on the premises was personal and not related to his employment. These facts, the court concluded, militated against immunity. Second, the court viewed Ries's actions in assisting Miles with the brakes of the semi Ries drove as a part of his employment. These activities, the court concluded, were done for the benefit of the employer and had a direct relationship to Ries's employment. These facts, the court concluded, favored immunity. Last, the court focused on the business advantage to Swiss Valley in offering employees the opportunity to use its shop and equipment. The court explained that Ries's very presence in the shop on the day of the accident arose out of his use of this business benefit. This aspect, the court concluded, also favored immunity. After the court observed the issue of immunity was a close call, the court concluded: Given the company's approval of employee use of the premises and Ries's activities directly related to the employer's benefit, the dual nature of his presence must be resolved in favor of finding that [the incident] arose out of and in the course of employment. If Ries himself had been injured in the incident, he would qualify for compensation under the Iowa Workers' Compensation provisions. The defendant is entitled to the benefit of chapter 85's immunity provisions. Meade disagrees with the district court's application of the arising out of and in the course of employment test to the facts of this case. As a preliminary matter, he argues the focal point of the analysis should be the negligent act of inflating the tire, rather than the moment of injury. He suggests where Iowa case law refers to the injury, we should in this case insert negligent act.