Opinion ID: 1350430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Proper 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.

As mentioned, an injury arises out of the employment if there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Bailey, 576 N.W.2d at 338. Such a connection is supplied when there is a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. 82 Am. Jur.2d Workers' Compensation § 263, at 258-59 (1992). In short, the arising out of requirement refers to the origin of the cause of the incident resulting in the injury. Id. § 265, at 261. To meet the arising out of test, the incident that caused the injury must have occur[ed] while the employee [was] engaged in some activity or duty which [the employee was] authorized to undertake, and which [was] calculated to further, indirectly or directly, the employer's business. Id. at 261-62. Where the incident causing the injury results from ventures personal to the claimant, [such injuries] are not caused by employment and are thus excluded from coverage of workers' compensation.... Id. § 281, at 281. In other words, injuries received by an employee while voluntarily engaged in some activity having no essential relation to, or connection with, the employment, and undertaken solely for the pleasure, convenience, or benefit of himself or a third person, are ordinarily not compensable as arising out of ... employment. Id. at 281-82; accord Linderman v. Cownie Furs, 234 Iowa 708, 714, 13 N.W.2d, 677, 681 (1944). Meade argues Ries's actions did not arise out of his employment because no causal connection exists between the employment and the injury. He focuses on the source of the accidentRies's negligent acts, i.e., failing to use the tire cage and walking away from the inflating tire with the air chuck attached. These actions, Meade concludes, were done for Ries's own benefit and not done to further his employer's business. In contrast, Ries argues he left the inflating tire unattended only because he was attending his work duties. The injury to Meade occurred only after Miles called Ries for assistance with repairing the semi's brakes. Therefore, Ries concludes, furtherance of his employer's interests at the time of the injury was a cause of Meade's injuries. As mentioned, the test is whether Ries would have been entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits had he been injured in the same accident. For reasons that follow, we conclude he would have not been entitled to such benefits had he been injured in the same accident. The following are undisputed facts. First, the incident causing the injury was the exploding tire. Second, the origin of this incident is directly traceable to Ries's inflating the tire. Third, but for his inflating the tire, the explosion and resulting injury would not have occurred. Fourth, Ries inflated the tire while off duty. Fifth, Ries inflated the tire voluntarily and not at the direction of, or compulsion by, his employer. Last, Ries inflated the tire for his own personal benefit and not for any reason connected with his employment or to further his employer's business. These undisputed facts lead us to conclude that had Ries been injured in the same accident, his injury would not have arisen out of employment. The district court erred in concluding otherwise.
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.