*1 Government United States with the necessary to
executed, it have been proceedings. In
institute condemnation proceedings the value
condemnation have been a
“shooting privileges” would con- damages to be element
proper determining value jury
sidered Conservancy land taken. Water
of the date a later agreed to do at merely
District do compelled to have been it would
what refused sell had the owners
sooner project.
lands appellants. Costs to Reversed. Henriod, J.,C. dissented. McDONOUGH, HENRIOD, J., and C. CROCKETT, JJ.,
CALLISTER con-
cur. Plaintiff, ASKREN,
Betty Utah,
The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Liberty Corporation, Mu- Sperry Rand Company, Defendants. Insurance tual
No. 9969.
Supreme of Utah. Court
April 15,
CROCKETT, Justice: Betty Askren seeks reversal of an order denying Industrial Commission her compensation for an *2 resulting her back from a fall in the premises. company cafeteria maintained on proceeding challenges ruling This the of injury not: the Commission that the did her em- “arise out or in the course of” of ployment.1 employed by Sperry Plaintiff was Rand’s laboratory Engineering Naval at Clearfield worked, In she building Base. the where Clark, operated con- a cafeteria under Inc. Sperry agreed: Sperry. By tract with it space for charge furnish the without cafeteria; equipment; capital utilities; glassware, all china and of dispose mate- waste and to remove and of responsible cleaning, for rials and to be mopping waxing area. It also and charged as prices should be stated that Sperry agreed between them: and any operating reimburse for Clark plain Sperry had a It is thus loss. and over degree of control substantial operation the cafe- responsibility of operating teria, in effect so that Clark was Kipp Charlier, City, & Lake Salt for employees However, Sperry. it for plaintiff. there, but were required to eat were not desired, they privileged if to do so so Skeen, Kesler, Gen, Atty.
A. Pratt employees did. about one-third of Christensen, Worsley, & Salt Lake Snow towns, nearby or City, went home into for defendants. Others coverage. 35-1-45, 1. This is the test of See Sec. U.C.A.1953. employer’s busi carrying on of in dis- and
or ate the Naval cafeteria some a na is, be of such it should away. ness. That tance reasonably be assumed may ture that agreement in with the areWe or advan be of some benefit that it would argument that where an em advanced operation of tage employer in the to the in engaged own time is ployee his in advancement of his his business or the activity facility made using or some some terests. employer gratuitously for available repeatedly affirmed has This court convenience, comfort, recreation or Compensation Act the Workmen’s particular employees, which is of no liberally applied of cov be in favor should in advantage or benefit to the employee. doctrine erage of the This business, suffered carrying on his in recent case Wilson illustrated therewith should not be con connection Sears, Co.,3 closely re Roebuck which is & employment. arising sidered as out of the principle instant one. lated to the so, only not This is because it would employee, period, was during her lunch statute, but it fall within the terms privilege accorded taking employer to would also be unfair to the discount, buying at a *3 place providing him ben burden for obtaining delivery was of some merchan policy employees; efits for his such a and injured. dise when she was The court re have the undesirable effect of tend jected against company her suit for employers ing discourage to furnish from personal injuries. It reasoned ing benefactions to them. activity
employee participating was in an encouraged by employer company on hand, for in order the other On premises advantage which was an to employee by workmen’s an to be covered employer, “[sjuch viz.: benefits are con necessary he be compensation, it is not helpful employer-employee sidered to be in particular which constitutes doing the task relations, and most the decided cases duties, many em his main but there are protection hold that the servant has the ployment-related activities which em injured participate compensation and while at ployees expected in acts if are to privi advantage they tempting The essential to take of such in which are covered.2 on leges during re lunch hour and while thing is that there be some substantial 4 activity engaged employer’s premises.” in lationship between Page Reports, page 2. Commission, 4. Ibid., 401 2 361 Utah See Stroud v. Industrial (1959). 270, 2d 272 187 of 384 P.2d. P.2d Utah (1963). 360, 2d 384 400 3. 14 Utah very closely plaintiff re engaged In a case whose facts Inasmuch as was Surety one, activity National in appears the instant have semble an to been Bellah,5 pointed planned integral out that Corp. part the court as an her em- ployer’s com employee doing was not on and fact that the business of which pany employer carry- not decisive. It observed was time was to the thirty period, ing on, plaintiff lunch there a short was it should be deemed cov- minutes, re by compensation to the relative and that due ered and the eating facilities there appropriate injury. of other award It moteness made for her employer and the a benefit to the was both is so ordered. plaintiff use the cafeteria
employee for to doing she fact that was and stressed the McDonough, callister and something and connected incidental to WADE, JJ., concur. and, by as intended the work consequently, covered.6 she was HENRIOD, : (dissenting) Chief Justice very simi is
The instant situation Respectfully I dissent. forty-two min period The lunch was
lar.
upset
em
don’t
the Commission’s
hundred
We
As
several
First:
utes.
there were
time,
competent,
unsupported by
it
during that
unless
ployees who had to eat
orders
evidence,
by
voiced
some
cafeteria offered
as has
is obvious that the
substantial
opin-
main
employer and em
the author of the
advantages
to
this
both
court
otherwise,
indi
strongly
is so
ion
than once.1 Stated
ployees. That
this
more
sustained,
by the
be
arrangements
made
will
order of the Commission
cated
arbitrary
establishing the cafeteria
company in
it is shown
be
unless
and/or
also
capricious,
main
author
has
bears in
to which the
the substantial burdens
Also, we
the evidence
review
taining it.
subscribed.2
(1957).
270,
Comm.,
936,
2d
279 Assuming the that to the Commis- restrictions. light more favorable in a lessee, by control conclusion, the had a conditional over the endorsed also sion’s point up any the this does not control over author.3 employees,- a differential. herein lies —and here, that the evidence is What So: operator If the cafe had an claim favorably support of upon more looked employer, Sperry, based on control of his order, justifies it? the Commission’s ridiculous, I think would which assume thing, that is but to attribute a control one required to eat employees were The Sperry’s him of employees, over to none operated on which, though cafeteria at the to or look whom had enter even at an en to leased premises, had any by any cafeteria at time sort neces- of employer’s part of the trepreneur, hardly a sity job, connected his amounts to a with employees Only plant. industrial 1/3 hearsay controlled control akin to k facility, without of too hearsay. compulsion.4 Other employer or economic opinion’s The circumlocution of the main premises off the available were facilities treatment of the evidence most favorable have or could did the other to which ^ applicant to to the exclusion that officially employees At noon resorted. order, most favorable to the Commission’s lunch. out, in after checked checked perhaps an gener- evasion of the trite free sojourn they were During the lunch alizations reflected in the cited in the cases employees could than as the birds. Others dissent, presents footnotes this a Ber No on occasion. eat at the cafeteria situation where this court a sort kept anyone cafe in or out
lin Wall
jurisprudential paralysis,
one
talks out of
obviously con
agreement
teria.
lease
January,
by con-
side of its mouth in
but
independent
templated
services of
therapy
infirmity
venient
shifts
to
contractor,
February.
leasehold
rather minor
other side in
with
Comm.,
hour, coupled
lunch
v. Ind.
15 Utah 2d
30 minutes
Nicholson
short
(1964);
inappropriate
v. Cal-
730
Jones
facilities outside
anywhere
Long
Pkg.,
supra;
impossible
plant,
Western
eat
ifornia
v.
made it
to
Ref.,
property,
supra;
company’s
Sutton
Ind.
save on the
States
supra.
Comm.,
factor
economic
forced
cafe,
company-sponsored
patronize the
Bellah,
Cir.,
bring
high
Surety Corp.
own lunch or starve at
Nat.
their
(1957),
heavily
Furthermore,
case
cited and
relied
noon.
was
F.2d
upon
opinion.
A
in the main
read
federal
which this
casual
intermediate
court
ing
proper
respect
no
thereof will
reflect
the case is
but
court
authority compulsive
ascribes
here,
inapropos
in our conclusions.
because
indicates
*5
Co.,5
Sears, Roebuck &
As Wilson opinion: no author in the main It is cited GILLMOR, L. Edward Edward Leslie Gill Gillmor, Jr., mor and C. Francis and the authority here, ity since this court had no Ranching Company, formerly Island known opinion express its as to whether facts Improvement Company, as Island Plain Respondents, tiffs and in a civil suit in the district court presented as to establish the or were not such were CARTER, Elwood B. Service Com Salt d/b/a employ nature or extent fact of the pany, Appellant. Defendant and Compensation ment, under our Workmen’s No. 9993. In question is reserved to the That Act. Supreme Court Utah. statutory int under dustrial Commission April 27, 1964. erdiction,6 subject courts and is no If this is in the first instance. to resolve contend, so, this can
not writer —success future, think, appli
fully, I —that compensation under the
cants for Work Act, go Compensation need
men’s channels, statutory may short
through but by simple
stop legislative interdiction
resort to the courts for determination case that until the Sears
fact situations procedure orderly to an
were confined
through Industrial Commission.
Hence, admit our mistake we should proce get back case and on
the Sears track, legislative lest the locomotive
dural this, my concede Saying I
be derailed. the Sears going along with
own error in in that
decision, only the excuse juris
case, litigants raised the none of course, This, is no point.
dictional error. for our
justification annotations, 35-1-85, U.C.A.1953 thereunder.