Court Opinion

ID: 9853735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:53:16.009391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:03.488659
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority that the "arising out of” employment component of the test for compensability is concerned primarily with causation, whereas the "in the course of” component refers to time, place and circumstances. Larsen v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 135 Or 137, 139-40, 295 P 195 (1931). However, contrary to the majority’s approach, the trend of authority both in Oregon and elsewhere is not to treat these two tests independently but as merely parts of a single test that *155the injury must be work related. See 1 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, §29.10 (1978). This was the approach we took in Jordan v. Western Electric, 1 Or App 441, 463 P2d 598 (1970). The majority is incorrect in attempting to characterize Jordan as an "in the course of employment” case. Rather, it was an attempt to harmonize both components of the test for compensability under ORS 656.005(8) by requiring a comprehensive analysis of all the relevant considerations to determine whether the injury was work related. In that case the claimant slipped on a curb and was injured while on his way back to work from an off premises paid coffee break at a restaurant. The claimant’s supervisor suggested that employees take their coffee break at the restaurant because there were no on-premises facilities for night shift employees. Thus, the issue in Jordan was not, as the majority suggests, merely one of determining whether claimant was injured in the course of his employment, but whether the claim was compensable, both with respect to being in the course of and arising out of the employment. We concluded that the claim was compensable, relying on the following factors:
"a) Whether the activity was for the benefit of the employer * * *
"b) Whether the activity was contemplated by the employer and employee either at the time of hiring or later * * *
"c) Whether the activity was an ordinary risk of, and incidental to, the employment * * *
"d) Whether the employee was paid for the activity * * *
"e) Whether the activity was on the employer’s premises * * *
"f) Whether the activity was directed by or acquiesced in by the employer * * *
"g) Whether the employee was on a personal mission of his own * * (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.) Jordan v. Western Electric, supra, 1 Or App at 443-44, 463 P2d at 600.
*156Jordan is probably the highwater mark for extending coverage under the Workers’ Compensation Act. It is not necessary, however, to narrow the holding in that case to determine that liability does not exist here. In Jordan we stated that one of the factors that must be considered is "whether the activity was an ordinary risk of, and incidental to, the employment.” (Emphasis supplied.) The language is significant because it expressly rejects a test from early workmen’s compensation cases that required that the risk be one "peculiar” to the employment, or one that is "increased by the employment.” See 1 A. Larson, supra, §§ 6.20 and 6.30. The holding in Jordan is consistent with what Professor Larson characterizes as the "positional risk test,” 1 A. Larson, supra, § 6.50, i.e., an injury arises out of the employment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where he was injured. The claimant in Jordan would not have been walking from the restaurant but for his employment. Similarly in Olsen v. SAIF, 29 Or App 235, 562 P2d 1234, 30 Or App 109, 566 P2d 1202, rev den (1977), claimant’s employment placed him in the position of repairing a co-worker’s bicycle and riding it on the employer’s dock where the wheel got lodged between the planks.
Here the activity of going to the bathroom was "incidental” to the employment, but the injury was not a "risk of * * * the employment.” Jordan v. Western Electric, supra, 1 Or App at 443, 463 P2d at 600. The act that caused the injury was claimant’s personal movements performed while using the toilet — a risk that claimant confronted irrespective of her employment.