Court Opinion

ID: 9585089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:56.809889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:32.504834
License: Public Domain

Thomas Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the words and actions of the employer can be construed only as definitely enlarging the usual scope of decedent’s employment.
It is to be recalled that employer testified:
“A. * * * I don’t remember the exact words but the sum and substance was, I said: ‘There is a man in the lake’, and I believe that I — I am not positive now, it has been a long time; seems to me I said, ‘We tetter stop’.
*****
“A. Something like that.” (Italics supplied.)
That decedent then stopped the truck and jumped out and “was clear over in the lake when I got there.” He further testified that, he followed decedent out on the lake and actually directed him in the rescue operations, as follows:
“A. Well, I see the ice was kind of shaky so I told him he better come to shore, over where the ice was thicker, and as he turned, why, then he broke through.”
When asked what he had in mind when he directed decedent to stop, he testified:
“A. * * * I suppose help is about what anybody would naturally have in mind when you see somebody drowning.
“Q. You had in mind trying to save a life?
*294“A. I suppose that was probably the idea. It wouldn’t be curiosity.”
It is clear from the foregoing (1) that employer directed decedent to stop the truck with the intent of rescuing the man in the water; (2) that employer accompanied decedent on this project; and (3) that while decedent was thus engaged he was actually being directed by his employer. It follows that the general principles set forth in O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 257, 207 N. W. 636, 638, cited in the majority opinion, became applicable. Therein it was stated:
“* * * an employer may enlarge or extend the scope of the employment; and an employe who, at the direction of his employer or of a superior to whose orders he is subject, performs services outside the duties of his usual employment, and performs them in consequence of the existence of the relation of employer and employe and as incidental to the employment, is within the protection of the act while performing such services.”
The facts outlined distinguish the instant case from Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 224 Minn. 256, 28 N. W. (2d) 859, where the employe was engaged in services outside the scope of his employment upon his own volition without directions from his employer or the foreman in charge of his work.
It is my conviction that only one conclusion can be drawn from the evidence referred to above, and that is that employer had definitely enlarged the scope of decedent’s employment and that decedent subsequently met death while engaged in such extended employment.
Losing, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher.
Frank T. Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher.