Court Opinion

ID: 9726524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:55:04.22089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:28.016427
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Acting P. J.
I concur in the result.
It is my opinion, however, that the frequency of the visits to the store by Mrs. Davison were engendered partially at least by her interest *959in claimant, though her purchases may likewise have been a reason therefor. Where the benefits resultant to an employer are attributable to the salesman, in part at least, certainly the causation of injury, as in the instant case, cannot be said to be without employment connection.1 It appears to me that throughout the cases involving injury or death to an employee cited in the main opinion and the holdings that workmen’s compensation benefits are applicable, there is the continuing thread of employer’s benefit involved in the employee’s activities. Where there is a romantic attachment to, or even mere personal interest in, an employee to such an extent as to reasonably redound to the benefit of an employer, an injury occasioned because of that interest and while the employee is in the course of employment is reasonably attributable to that employment.
The petition of respondents Church and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 3, 1972.

A different result would be occasioned had the motivation for the shooting been an association between Mrs. Davison and claimant outside of and totally unrelated to the employer’s business, even though the injury occurred on employer’s premises. This distinction is not at variance with California Comp. & Fire Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 68 Cal.2d 157 [65 Cal.Rptr. 155, 436 P.2d 67], for in that case it was for the benefit of the employer that the decedent was placed in an increased position of danger.