Court Opinion

ID: 9854418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:26.277015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:04.609809
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice PARKER,
dissenting.
I cannot accept the view of the majority that since there was no claim of culpable negligence in this case “we have no need to concern ourselves with who or what may have caused the accident.” It is surprising that neither the employer nor the state treasurer directly raised the question of the employees’ negligence. However, even though the burden of proving that an employee is guilty of misconduct amounting to serious or willful misconduct is upon the employer, who must present the matter as *552an affirmative defense, the burden was on the claimants to prove, at least prima facie, each of the elements entitling them to compensation, including the actual time of the injury, its cause, and its relation to the employment at the time of injury. In re Hardison, Wyo., 429 P.2d 320, 322; Bemis v. Texaco, Inc., Wyo., 401 P.2d 708, 709. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court and the majority here to address themselves only to the fact that the accident occurred at a time when the employees were returning on a, portion of the authorized course of travel and in so doing to ignore the significant incidents of the prior deviation disclosed by the record.
The three men had commenced their employment activities in the Midwest area on Wednesday, March 22, continuing through Saturday, March 25. On Saturday they had arisen at approximately 4 a. m., arrived at the work site between 5:30 and 6 a. m., did not stop for lunch, but continued their activities until about 5:30 p. m. They decided to go to Kaycee but, after being stuck in the mud until about 8 p. m., drove to Midwest to leave their equipment. After supper and drinking there (each had three beers and Boston and Colgan more), they did go to Kaycee, arriving at approximately 11 p. m. and leaving sometime after 1 a. m. (each again being served three beers and Boston and Colgan doing additional drinking). Their intention, due to the lateness of the hour — they had been without sleep for over 21 hours — was to go to Midwest, pick up their equipment, return to the research site, finish work, drive to Casper, and then go on to Laramie either Sunday evening or Monday morning. On arriving at Midwest, the driver, Bostrom, could not awaken the other two and, deciding there was no sense in his trying to go out and work, was proceeding to Casper when he “felt a little bit drowsy, * * * rolled down the window, turned on the radio and was revived fully * * * rolled up the window * * * and then the accident occurred shortly” — his worker’s report stating, “fell asleep at the wheel.” The patrolman arrived at the scene of the accident about 2:30 a. m. Bostrom was in the hospital between 3:30 and 4 a. m. and consented to a blood alcohol test, the result showing “point zero three.” 1 (In Richard v. George Noland Drilling Company, Wyo., 331 P.2d 836, 840, this court observed that a claimant in an advanced state of intoxication may abandon his employment by making himself incapable of engaging in his duties.)
Although I have carefully considered the evidence in the light most favorable to claimants, I cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the accident occurred because of the deviation, and the happenstance that the automobile was en route to Casper at that time cannot change the fact that under the circumstances here present there could not be a holding that the three men were injured as a result of their employment, rather there was an abandonment of employment which precluded an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Stephens v. Young, 115 Ohio App. 13, 184 N.E.2d 112; Public Service Co. of Northern Illinois v. Industrial Commission, 395 Ill. 238, 69 N.E. 2d 875.
I would reverse.

. Judicial notice may be taken that tests as to the influence of alcohol on operators of motor vehicles have shown performance was impaired on the average by 25 to SO percent when the alcohol concentration in the blood reached 0.03 to 0.04 percent and that the impairment was 35 percent when the alcohol concentration in the blood was 0.05 percent. These facts are discussed in McFarland, Human Factors in Air Transportation, pp. 297-298 (1953), and relate to experiments conducted at sea level. It is common knowledge that the influence of alcohol is more pronounced at higher altitudes.