Court Opinion

ID: 9703617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:02:09.115471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:50.576438
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Although I concur with respect to Issue I, I dissent as to Issue II.
The only interpretation which can be placed upon the majority's holding is that any injury sustained late at night shortly after working hours in a fenced and lighted employee parking lot is an injury which arose out of and in the course of the employment. I cannot subscribe to such an unwarranted and overly broad construction of the Workmen's Compensation statute.
I believe that the majority's reliance upon Skinner v. Martin (1983) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 455 N.E.2d 1168, is inappropriate. In Skinner, the altercation occurred during a coffee break on the premises and arose precisely because Skinner would not return to his job task upon request. The injury therefore clearly arose as a result of Skinner's job duties or his refusal to perform them. Subsequently in Martin v. Powell (1985) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 943, the same panel declined to apply the "arising out of" principles of Skinner to a situation which involved a personal incident as opposed to a work-related incident.
In the case before us, the evidence does not disclose that the shooting incident was work related. Because of the cireumstane-es, it would appear quite to the contrary. In any event, I do not believe the Skinner ease supports the majority decision here.
In Olinger Construction Co. v. Mosbey (1981) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 910, the majority adopted a positional risk or "but for" test. The rule was specifically limited to traveling employees. It would seem that now, however, the majority seeks to extend that doctrine to all employees and to hold that an accident arises "out of" the employment any time "the employee is at the place the accident occurs because of his employment." 427 N.E.2d 910, 915. For this reason, I consider my dissenting opinion in Olinger to warrant and necessitate my dissent here. 427 N.E.2d 910, 916-919.
I would reverse the award and direct that it be set aside.