Court Opinion

ID: 9669426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:56:03.168408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.701513
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that whenever an employee is transported from an exempt employment situation to a covered employment site in *810employer-controlled or employer-supplied transportation, an injury during that journey always automatically arises out of and in the course of the covered employment.
The majority opinion concludes that because the plaintiff had completed his duties at the farm, which was not covered employment, and was in the process of returning to his duties at the service station, which was covered employment, his injury was covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act because the defendant supplied the plaintiff with a vehicle for transportation in conjunction with his employment. However, the vehicle supplied by the defendant in this case was used by the plaintiff in conjunction with his duties at both the farm and the service.station.
Because the plaintiff had completed his chores at the hog farm and was returning to the service station (in the vehicle supplied by the defendant for use in conjunction with the plaintiff’s duties at the farm as well as the service station), the return trip to the service station was not within the scope of his employment at the station.
Where an employee leaves the place where his duties are to be performed or where his service requires his presence to engage in other objectives, not incident to his employment, the relation of employee and employer does not exist until he returns to a place where, by the terms of his employment, he is required to perform services.
Solheim v. Hastings Housing Co., 151 Neb. 264, 276, 37 N.W.2d 212, 219 (1949). See, also, Gibb v. Highway G.M.C. Sales & Service Corp., 178 Neb. 127, 132 N.W.2d 297 (1964); McDuffee v. Seiler Surgical Co., Inc., 172 Neb. 325, 109 N.W.2d 384 (1961); Luke v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 140 Neb. 557, 300 N.W. 577 (1941).
In Solheim, the plaintiff, who was employed by both the Hastings Housing Company and the Kearney Construction Company as the manager of construction, was injured while returning to Hastings from a trip to Kearney, where he had traveled to perform duties relating to his employment as construction manager of the Kearney Construction Company. There were no duties relating to the plaintiff’s employment as construction manager of the Hastings Housing Company *811which required the plaintiff to travel to Kearney. This court found that while the plaintiff was on the trip from Hastings to Kearney and back, he was not performing duties relating to the Hastings Housing Company such as to bring him within the scope of his employment with that company and that the plaintiff had no basis for a claim against the Hastings Housing Company.
In the present case, the plaintiff testified that when he was at the southwest hog farm he was doing chores and that he was not performing service station activities. Accordingly, the rule set forth in the Solheim decision applies. The trip to the farm and back was required by his noncovered employment. Although the plaintiff was driving a vehicle supplied by his employer, the plaintiff had not returned to a place where by the terms of his employment he was required to perform services related to his job at the service station.
The decision of the compensation court should have been affirmed.