Court Opinion

ID: 9542311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:32:57.391866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:33.984235
License: Public Domain

Peterson, Justice
(concurring specially).
This case is at best a marginal one, decision of which turns on its unique facts. It is, in a sense, similar to Snyder v. General Paper Corp. 277 Minn. 376, 152 N. W. 2d 743 (1967), where the divided court’s decision was tipped in favor of the deceased employee’s dependent widow by a concurring opinion which turned on the particular “environment of the occasion” (277 Minn. 388, 152 N. W. 2d 751).
The facts surrounding the fatal accident are sketchy. Decedent apparently was returning to his motel from the Bar-B-Q Tavern, located in the immediate vicinity of the motel. He had consumed alcoholic beverages, but the commission correctly pointed out that there was no proof that he was intoxicated. Although the commission made no finding on the matter, decedent may have consumed a meal at the same time.1 The important fact, to me, is that the employee’s activity — at the employer’s expense — was authorized. The employer himself testified:
“We pay the motel bill, we pay the food bill, and oftentimes pay for a beer or a drink or whatever he has with his meals, and so forth.” (Italics supplied.)
I think the commission could conclude, in this unusual situation, that the employee’s accidental death arose out of a contem*236plated hazard connected with his employment, and on that narrow basis I concur in the result.

 Decedent did not work what for most people would be a normal work schedule. Working in cycles of 8 hours on and 8 hours off, it is understandable that his mealtimes would not necessarily coincide with what for most people would be a “normal” schedule for mealtime.