Court Opinion

ID: 9659245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:36:18.225066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:05.582422
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view the undisputed facts require the conclusion that employee Carol Johnson’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment with relator, Toro Company. The result should not be determined by semantic rather than substantive matters of fact.
Employee was invited to a buffet dinner; she was neither “directed” nor “required” to attend. Similarly, she was offered a Christmas gift of a turkey, for which it was only necessary that she appear in advance to obtain a card — at most a condition for the gift.
The applicable statute, Minn.Stat. § 176.-011, subd. 16 (1982), provides:
“Personal injury” means injury arising out of and in the course of employment * * *; but does not cover an employee except while engaged in, on, or about the premises where his services require his presence as a part of such service at the time of the injury and during the hours of such service.
(Emphasis added). Clearly, employee was on the premises at the time of her injury to accept a gift and was not there because her services “require[d] her presence as a part of such service at the time of the injury * * * >>
As the compensation judge had similarly reasoned, the employee’s acceptance of the employer’s gifts of dinner and a turkey was voluntary, the acceptance of which gave no substantial benefit to the employer. We ourselves reached the same result in Ramaker v. Marjae, Inc., 301 Minn. 58, 221 N.W.2d 125 (1974); Pasko v. Beecher Co., 301 Minn. 61, 221 N.W.2d 127 (1974); and Ethen v. Franklin Mfg. Co., 286 Minn. 371, 176 N.W.2d 72 (1970), which held that if employer-sponsored social functions brought the employer no greater benefit than improved employee morale, injuries sustained by employees while going to, participating in, or returning from such functions are not compensable.
This situation is distinguishable from that in which employees are required to appear in person at the employer’s premises to obtain their paychecks. The latter is premised on the employer’s contractual obligation to pay its employees for work performed, in connection with which the employer imposes the requirement that the paycheck be picked up at the premises. See 1A A. Larson, Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 26.30 (1979). As a basis for decision, the majority’s easy translation of this customary gift as “in effect” an “expected form of bonus compensation which the employee had anticipated” is unprecedented.