Court Opinion

ID: 9851828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:20:19.528822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:16.150120
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
In what trial attorneys may see as a further undermining of the intent and pur*170pose of the Idaho Workmen’s Compensation law, I.C. § 72-201, the majority, like the Commission, has twisted the facts of this case, thereby making more palatable the denying of compensation to decedent’s widow and three minor children. Then, under the ruse of applying the standard of review that this Court must affirm where the findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence, the Court continues to rule in favor of employers by denying benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation law. The ultimate ramification of this Court’s and the Commission’s, propensity to overlook the requisite liberal interpretation of the Workmen’s Compensation law, Stover v. Washington County, 63 Idaho 145, 118 P.2d 63 (1941); Anderson v. Woesner, 66 Idaho 441, 159 P.2d 899 (1944); is that injured workers will forego their options under the Workmen’s Compensation law and elect to sue their employers under the common law. The ultimate result could be far more damaging to employers and certainly will disrupt harmonious business relations between employers and employees.
The Court today once again chooses to automatically adopt the Commission’s ruling in spite of the fact that the evidence in the record clearly contradicts the findings of the Commission. This Court continues to adhere to an approach the basis of which is to numbly review the Commission’s findings and conclusions without regard for the record. No one is suggesting that this Court take over the duties of the Commission in its fact-finding capacity, but it is the role of this Court to examine the record and compare it to the Commission’s findings. Moreover, when the Commission makes an error of law it is clearly the function of this Court to correct the situation. Because I believe the Commission has erred in its fact-finding capacity and as a matter of law, I must dissent.
I.
In Finding of Fact IV the Commission first determined that the maintenance foreman owned the batteries in the shop which were sold to purchase alcohol for the party. The Commission later found that the junk batteries were those of the employer. The testimony is clear that the batteries were the employer’s, not the foreman’s and that these batteries were sold to purchase refreshments, including alcohol for the party. The Commission’s conclusion in section II of the Conclusions of law that the employer neither arranged for nor paid for the party is in direct contravention of the finding that the employer’s batteries were used to purchase refreshments. The conclusion is erroneous.
The Commission also found that the batteries were sold without the employer’s permission and that the party was never authorized by the employer. What the Commission failed to perceive is that the employer was the corporation, Burl Lange, Inc. Mr. Lange just happens to' be the primary shareholder and the corporation’s chief executive officer. The fact that the corporation’s maintenance foreman arranged the party rather than Mr. Lange does not mean that the employer did not sponsor the party. The deceased was hired by the corporation’s maintenance foreman, not by Mr. Lange. When invited to the party arranged by the maintenance foreman the employee had every reason to believe that it was the corporate employer sponsoring the party, not the foreman’s personal private affair. And, it is a bit much to say that a party held on the employer’s premises by a manager of the business is not an employer-sponsored party. Unless a party directed by a chief executive officer of a large corporation on corporate premises is not ever going to be considered employer-sponsored, then the instant party also was not.
Furthermore, Mr. Lange was well aware that plans for the party had been made and that it was to be held at the maintenance shop of his corporation. He had been asked to attend by one of the employees. And, Mr. Lange was also aware that a similar party had been given the year before at Christmas-time at the corporation’s shop. In his position it was certainly with*171in his power to object to any parties on the premises; he could easily have done so in the year in question.
The Commission also found that “Mr. Burl Lange never gave his permission or authorization for the party.” While this statement may be technically true on its face, it does not preclude this party from being one sponsored by the corporation, and it overlooks the fact that Mr. Lange acquiesced to a party being held on the premises. To conclude that this was not an employer-sponsored party is erroneous.
The Commission also found that only 20 percent of the employees attended the party in question, suggesting that the employees did not consider the party either an incident or a benefit of employment. This finding of fact is clearly erroneous. The only witness who testified as to the number of employees in attendance estimated 25 persons. All the other witnesses guessed that only 20 percent attended. Burl Lange testified that approximately 50 persons were employed by Burl Lange, Inc. at the time in question. For the Commission to ignore the only testimony as to actual number of employees in attendance is clear error. Twenty percent of 50 employees is ten persons. Burl Lange, three foremen, and Roderick Snyder make four. Then there were two fights between Snyder and others, and at least four men carried Snyder to his vehicle after he was knocked unconscious. The Commission’s finding that only 20 percent of the employees attended the party indicates that ten men consumed over $100 in alcohol and refreshments. The Commission’s conclusion that the party was not attended by many employees and was not sponsored for the benefit of the employees is also in error.
The Commission also found that the employee died after he left the party and that the body was found on property owned by the individual who leased property to Burl Lange, Inc. The Commission then concluded that because the body was not on the employer’s premises, therefore the premises rule was not particularly helpful in deciding this case. Unfortunately, the Commission focused on the wrong event in construing the premises rule. Although there is some doubt as to whether the body was actually located on the employer’s premises, it is essentially irrelevant. The location of the body was not the proximate cause of the employee’s death. The events which precipitated the employee’s death began in the employer’s shop: consumption of large amounts of alcohol, fighting and being knocked unconscious, being placed in a cold vehicle by other employees while unconscious. The fact that Roderick Snyder managed to travel another 200 feet before collapsing ignores the reality that when he was placed in his truck by the employees of the company, the die was already cast. He was clearly in a drunken state. He did not even have on an overcoat. And the employees could easily have placed Mr. Snyder in a corner of the heated shop, rather than leave him on the front seat of his truck. One is made to wonder, what if Mr. Snyder, while at work, accidentally swallowed some poison in the premises bathroom when he thought he was taking aspirin, driven home and died in his bathroom? Would this not be an industrial accident for which death benefits could be awarded? The actual location of the body is irrelevant when the injury causing death occurred on the premises of the employer. McCarty v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board, 12 Cal.3d 677, 117 Cal.Rptr. 65, 527 P.2d 617 (1974); Satchell v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 94 Cal.App.2d 473, 210 P.2d 867 (1949).
In McCarty, supra, an employee was killed on the way home from a Christmas party at which he had consumed substantial amounts of alcohol. In deciding that benefits should be awarded the employee’s widow, the court focused on the proximate cause of death, not the location of the body. The insurer contended that the going and coming rule precluded recovery because the death occurred in transit. The court, however, ruled that the going and coming rule did “not apply if the approved consumption of alcohol on the employer’s premises proximately caused the accident.” Id. 117 Cal.Rptr. at 66, 527 P.2d at 618. *172The court summarized its analysis by stating that “if the proximate cause is of industrial origin, the time and place of injury or death even if foreign to the premises does not serve to nullify recovery.” Id. 117 Cal.Rptr. at 67, 527 P.2d at 619.
II.
With regard to the rulings of law made by the Commission, I have one major disagreement. First, the Commission did not have the benefit of our decision in Grant v. Brownfield’s Orthopedic & Prosthetic, 105 Idaho 542, 671 P.2d 455 (1983), when it issued its decision in the instant case. Had the Commission had the benefit of Grant when deciding Snyder, I am convinced the result would have been different.
In Grant, supra, we went to great lengths in our analysis of the “in the course of employment” requirement for death or accident benefits. Our analysis began with Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 22.00 on recreational and social activities and related sections. We also examined pertinent case law on the issue of “in the course of employment.” After careful scrutiny of the factors to be considered, including employer sponsorship, voluntariness of attendance, benefits to the employer and employee, and the premises rule, we concluded that the claimant in Grant was entitled to benefits arising from the death of his wife at a Christmas party sponsored by her employer.
Our analysis in Grant is applicable here. And in this case because the party was held on the employer’s premises there is a stronger argument for awarding death benefits to the claimant than in Grant Here the attendance was voluntary as in Grant, although sponsorship was joint in that both the employer and employees contributed to the financing of the event, nevertheless, the employer did contribute financially to the party. Furthermore, benefits were obtained by both the employees and the employer in promoting good working relations among the employees. These factors combined with the proximate cause of the death being on the premises support that the death was in the course of employment and that claimant might be entitled to benefits under the Worker’s Compensation law of this state. I believe the instant case should be remanded for a new hearing in light of the rules of law set forth in Grant.
Finally, I am most troubled by this Court’s novel proposition of law which reads: “On appeal, the facts and all inferences therefrom must be viewed most favorably to the party who prevailed below.” The majority cites as authority two cases, Higginson v. Westergard, 100 Idaho 687, 604 P.2d 51 (1979), and Matter of Webber’s Estate, 97 Idaho 703, 551 P.2d 1339 (1976), neither of which has anything to do with Workmen’s Compensation law. Higginson was a case where the Department of Water Resources brought an action to compel a property owner to remove a dike allegedly interfering with the flow of a river adjacent to his property. And Webber’s Estate involved a dispute over a holographic will. The majority today is attempting to surrupticiously undermine the objectives of the Workmen’s Compensation law in Idaho by inserting into opinions like this, rules of law which directly contravene the tone and purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation law. Such bastardization of the Workmen’s Compensation law is alarming.