861 N.W.2d 775
S.D.2015Background
- Employee Aaron Terveen, a DOT journey transportation technician required to travel on business, was returning from a work trip to Yankton when he crashed on a dead-end side road (Prairie Hills Road) about 2.5 miles from the DOT shop. He could not recall why he turned onto the road.
- DOT generally allowed limited personal stops during work travel (e.g., visiting family, shopping), but had not authorized trips to further another employer’s business.
- Evidence indicated Terveen occasionally did repossession work for a third party; his personal device later showed a repossession order for a vehicle located on Prairie Hills Road, though he had no repossession order or truck at the time of the accident.
- The Department of Labor awarded workers’ compensation; the circuit court reversed and dismissed Terveen’s claim. Terveen appealed the denial of coverage under the requirement that an injury arise out of and in the course of employment.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) the injury "arose out of" employment (causal connection) and (2) occurred "in the course of" employment (time, place, circumstances), and whether a brief detour was insubstantial or a severable side‑trip that broke coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the injury "arise out of" employment? | Terveen: his trip back from a work trip placed him on the relevant route, so employment contributed to the injury. | DOT: employment did not expose him to the specific hazard on Prairie Hills Road, and the stop likely furthered another employer. | No — no causal connection shown; employment did not expose him to the risk on that dead-end road. |
| Did the injury occur "in the course of" employment? | Terveen: as an outside employee who spends much time traveling, personal errands during travel are incidental and within course of employment. | DOT: the detour was not naturally or incidentally related to DOT duties and was not authorized; not a self-care personal errand. | No — the detour was substantial, personal, and not naturally/incidentally related or impliedly authorized. |
| Was the deviation "insubstantial" so coverage continued? | Terveen: the deviation was short (≈10 minutes) and therefore insubstantial. | DOT: even a short but purposive detour to a dead-end to further another employer shows intent to abandon the business trip. | No — the court found the deviation substantial despite brevity; intent to abandon job temporarily inferred. |
| If a personal side‑trip, had he "resumed" the business journey before the injury? | Terveen: recovery toward the highway constituted resuming the business trip, so coverage should attach (minority rule). | DOT: majority rule requires the employee to "get back on the beam" (reach the main route) before coverage resumes. | No — court adopted the majority rule for severable side‑trips: he had not resumed the business journey at the time of injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vollmer v. Wal‑Mart Store, Inc., 729 N.W.2d 377 (S.D. 2007) (administrative-review standard and agency-findings treatment)
- Fair v. Nash Finch Co., 728 N.W.2d 623 (S.D. 2007) (workers’ compensation requires injury both arising out of and in the course of employment)
- Bender v. Dakota Resorts Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 700 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2005) (tests for ‘‘arising out of’’ and ‘‘in the course of’’ employment)
- Phillips v. John Morrell & Co., 484 N.W.2d 527 (S.D. 1992) (but‑for causation and insubstantial deviation discussion)
- Norton v. Deuel Sch. Dist., 674 N.W.2d 518 (S.D. 2004) (limits on personal activities considered within course of employment)
- Johnson v. Skelly Oil Co., 288 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1980) (dual‑purpose doctrine analysis)