Court Opinion

ID: 9735653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:26:55.337449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.693648
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Circuit court should be affirmed for this reason: Worker’s compensation benefits were rightfully awarded to the decedent’s widow and minor children, through his estate, via the “dual purpose” test when the death of this young police officer resulted on a trip which arose out of and in the course of his employment, notwithstanding that the trip was in coincidence with some of his personal business. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
First, some foundational authorities to support this dissent:
1. SDCL 62-1-1(2). We must determine if the death arose “out of and in the course of employment ... ”,
2. See, Pickrel v. Martin Beach, Inc., 80 S.D. 376, 124 N.W.2d 182 (1963), for decision on compensable injuries arising “out of and in the course of the employment ...”. Anderson v. Hotel Cataract, 70 S.D. 376, 17 N.W.2d 913 (1945), stands for the proposition that “... it [is] sufficient if the accident had its origin in the hazard to which the employment exposed the employee while doing his work.” Under Jacobson v. Strong and Waggoner, 66 S.D. 552, 287 N.W. 41 (1939), “The contents of the statute do not limit the application to the periods during which an employee is actually engaged in the work that he his hired to perform”. Accord: Wilson v. Dakota Light and Power Co., 45 S.D. 175, 186 N.W. 828 (1922).
3. Workmen’s Compensation statutes, we have repeatedly held, are to be given a liberal construction in favor of the worker. One may read back as far as Meyer v. Roettele, 64 S.D. 36, 264 N.W. 191 (1935). And some 44 years later, we were still saying so in Bearshield v. City of Gregory, 278 N.W.2d 166 (S.D.1979) (case involving police officer). We also reiterate this liberal approach to favor the worker via S.D. Med. Service v. Minn. Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 303 N.W.2d 358, 360 (S.D.1981), a case written by Justice Morgan on reassignment and in which I concurred outright, Chief Justice Wollman concurring specially on other grounds *776and Justices Dunn and Foshiem concurring in part and dissenting in part on other grounds.*
The principles set out above, when applied the facts before us, mandate one result: Wilcox is entitled to compensation as his injury was incurred in the course of his employment. Wilcox’s trip involved retrieving a dog from Ideal and taking it to Winner. A dog, Man’s Best Friend though he is, needs supervision when in transit from one community to another. Left to his own devices, a dog might not conduct himself from Point A to the desired Point B. Someone, sometime, had to transport this dog. This leads us, as if on a leash, to Johnson v. Skelly Oil Co., 288 N.W.2d 493 (S.D.1980) quoted by the majority:
“[I]t is not necessary, under this formula, that, on failure of the personal motive, the business trip would have been taken by this particular employee at this particular time. It is enough someone, sometime would have had to take the trip to carry out the business mission. Perhaps another employee would have done it; perhaps another time would have been chosen; but if a special trip would have had to be made for this purpose ... it was a concurrent cause of the trip ... ”.
Johnson, at 495 (quoting 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation, § 18.13 at 4-229 (1978)) (emphasis in original). The dog was a concurrent cause of the trip.
The sole issue here is whether the injury. arose “in the course of employment.” Bearshield, supra, at 168. In my view, it did.

 Justice Dunn lengthily pointed out that this Court had taken the historic stance that the workmen’s compensation law was to improve the economic status of workers and to avoid enforcement of commo'n-Iaw remedies. Therefore, a long history of decisions in this Court supports a policy of liberal construction as compared to a narrow, strained construction such as we see in this case. See, e.g., Donovan v. Powers, 86 S.D. 245, 193 N.W.2d 796 (1972); Schwan v. Premack, 70 S.D. 371, 17 N.W.2d 911 (1945).