In Scrivner v. Franklin School District No. 2, 50 Idaho 77, 293 P. 666, it was held that an automobile collision injuring a teacher proceeding to the residence of the chairman of the board of trustees, to make a customary report, occurred during employment and justified compensation.Summary of this case from Inglish v. Indus. Comm
November 25, 1930.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Law. Judgment reversing order of Industrial Accident Board denying compensation. Affirmed.
Scatterday Stone, for Appellants.
Where it is sought to prove that the service being rendered at the time of the injury was rendered in the course of the employment by reason of the fact that the employee was performing a mission for the employer, the mission must be the major factor in the journey or movement and not merely incidental thereto. ( London Guarantee Accident Co. v. Industrial Ace. Com., 190 Cal. 587, 213 P. 977; Greer v. Industrial Com. of Utah, 279 P. 900; Eby v. Industrial Acc. Com., 75 Cal.App. 280, 242 P. 901; Rawson's Case, 126 Me. 563, 140 Atl. 365; Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Anderson, 69 Colo. 147, 169 P. 135, L.R.A. 1918F, 885; N. K. Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, 285 Ill. 11, 120 N.E. 457.)
Thos. E. Buckner and Donald Anderson, for Respondents.
That an injury should arise out of and in the course of employment it is not necessary that the employee be actively employed at the time of the injury. Employment within the meaning of the statute refers rather to the contract than to the labor done in pursuance of the contract, and an employee does not cease to be an employee because he is not actively engaged in work at the time of the injury. ( State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com., 89 Cal.App. 197, 264 Pac. 514; Re Cook, 243 Mass. 572, 29 A.L.R. 114, 137 N.E. 733; Wirta v. North Butte Min. Co., 64 Mont. 279, 30 A.L.R. 964, 210 P. 332; Zeier v. Boise Transfer Co., 43 Idaho 549, 254 Pac. 209 (in effect holds the same); Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co., 92 Conn. 274, 102 Atl. 604; Horn v. Arnett, 91 N.J.L. 110, 102 Atl. 366; Scott v. Payne Bros., Inc., 85 N.J.L. 446, 89 Atl. 927; Lumbermen's Reciprocal Assn. v. Behnken, 112 Tex. 103, 28 A.L.R. 1402, 246 S.W. 72.)
Claimant, Mrs. Scrivner, was employed by the Franklin School District No. 2 of Canyon County as a teacher, and on a certain morning when riding in an automobile toward the schoolhouse was injured in an automobile collision. On this morning it was her intention to leave the road leading directly to the schoolhouse and go to the residence of the chairman of the board of trustees to report in regard to certain children of school age in the district who were not in school, and also to consult with the trustee in regard to certain playground or schoolhouse equipment.
The State Industrial Accident Board found as above but concluded in effect that the action did not arise in the course of and out of her employment and denied compensation. The trial court construed the law otherwise. The contract of employment between Mrs. Scrivner and the school district required the teachers to maintain proper order and discipline in the school, to prepare and forward to the proper official all required school reports, and C. S., sec. 944, provides as follows:
"General Duties of Teacher. Every teacher shall make reports, in addition to those mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, which may be required by the state superintendent, county superintendent, or by the school district board of trustees, — hold pupils to a strict account for disorderly conduct or improper language in or about the building, on the playgrounds and on the way to and from school."
Appellant argues that the claimant not having departed from the main road she was accustomed to travel in going to and from the school had not yet entered upon the special service, if any, in connection with her reporting to and consulting with the chairman of the board. There is, however, no denial in the record, and the Industrial Accident Board expressly found that it was the claimant's intention on the morning in question, and in her course of travel, to report to and consult with the chairman of the board; that she had done so on previous occasions, that it was her custom to do so, and that the board of school trustees knew of and acquiesced therein. The law applicable to this kind of a situation, and answering appellant's contention that compensation is not allowed for accidents occurring on the way to or from work, is well stated in Kyle v. Greene High School, 208 Iowa, 1037, 226 N.W. 71, at 72, thus:
"An exception to the aforesaid general rule is found in cases where it is shown that the employee, although not at his regular place of employment, even before or after customary working hours, is doing, is on his way home after performing, or on the way from his home to perform, some special service or errand or the discharge of some duty incidental to the nature of his employment in the interest of, or under direction of, his employer. In such cases, an injury arising enroute from the home to the place where the work is performed, or from the place of performance of the work to the home, is considered as arising out of and in the course of the employment."
Stockley v. School District No. 1 of Portage Tp., 231 Mich. 523, 204 N.W. 715, relied on in the above case, is quite in point. The situation therein was that a schoolteacher on her way to attend a teacher's institute, at the request of the school superintendent, was injured. Compensation was awarded.
Appellant argues that on the morning in question the claimant had not observed any children on the way to school who required discipline; the claimant nevertheless was in the boundaries of the district and by the statute was not only required to observe the conduct or the children but she was expressly and directly on the way to see the chairman of the board. Though there might have been other means of communication, such as telephone, mail or by messenger, the finding of the Industrial Accident Board that it was her custom to so report to and consult with the chairman, and that on the particular morning she intended so to do, clearly justifies the conclusion that the accident occurred during the course of her employment as teacher. ( City of Fremont v. Lea, 115 Neb. 565, 213 N.W. 820; Weston-Dodson Co. v. Carl, 156 Md. 535, 144 Atl. 708; Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co., 133 Or. 468, 286 P. 527.)
The judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.
Budge, Lee, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.