Court Opinion

ID: 9544251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:53:36.152543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:30.977268
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: As the trial court pointed out, the petitioner has the burden of proving that the accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. The evidence is sufficient for the Commission to find that the employee’s drinking of alcohol was incidental to her duties. This does satisfy the requirement that the accident arise out of the petitioner’s employment. There is a complete absence of evidence, however, that the accident arose in the course of her employment. The employee was not in the status which required travel as a part of her job. She was not on any special mission for the employer at the' time of the accident. And, likewise, she was not engaged in any recreational activity as a part of her employment at the time of her accident. Liability cannot rest upon imagination, speculation or conjecture. The employee did not produce any of her friends whom she was with during the hours of her employment. Nor did she produce the witness who followed her in her motor vehicle, a boyfriend by the.name of Louie. The record is clear that no witness testified that she was intoxicated or that she had any of the characteristics of an intoxicated person. In Technical Tape, the employee produced eyewitness testimony that the employee was dizzy and under the effect of some substances when he was still on the premises of the employer. There also was medical testimony on causal connection that the substances could cause intoxication and in fact did cause intoxication of the employee. Not only was no evidence presented concerning the employee’s intoxication in this case, but the police reports of the accident show no evidence of intoxication. Likewise, the medical records and reports show no abnormal alcohol content in the employee’s blood. Inasmuch as she failed to provide any witnesses to show that she was intoxicated while on the premises of her employer, her application for adjustment of claim must fail. There simply is no proof of causal connection between her employment and the injuries she sustained in the accident while driving her personal motor vehicle after her employee status ended on January 10,1978.