*1 STATE, v. L. FAUST CAROL DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. INC., PLAN, INTERVENOR. HEALTH
GROUP 252 W.
March Roll, F.
Lawrence for relators. Rielce, respondent.
Paul V. argument. oral Considered and decided the court without Pee Cueiam. Plan, Inc., Group in- upon
Certiorari relation of Health tervenor, Faust, employee respondent and Carol Minnesota, Com- the Workers’ State of to review a decision of (now Compensation Court Board the Worker's denying injury employee Appeals) sustained benefits for an reverse. hour. We Employee Department of Revenue works for Cen- Building, south tennial fronts Cedar Street Office Capitol. in the mid- The main entrance to building. Opposite dle and across Cedar grounds Cap- grassy mall, which is privately operated The Centennial has itol people may buy employees and other bring Employees may eat their their lunch to work lunch. making any purchases the cafeteria without there. Em- use ployees eat forbidden to their lunch at desks but their required are not to eat their lunch cafeteria. many employees summer months *2 steps Building lunch on the front or the Centennial across Ce- Street, grassy dar Many on mall. eat on the directly mall cross Cedar in the of the block middle front of the main entrance to rather go to the crosswalks at the ends block. August 16, 1973, employee’s
On lunch break was from 12:30 p.m. approximately to 1 At 12:35 she left Build- the Centennial ing by prepared to midblock front entrance and cross the standing partly street to eat her lunch on the mall. While looking oncoming street to her left traffic northbound lane, right up a van which to her her, backed and struck causing injuries compensation. for which she seeks
If way while on to had teria, it clear that she entitled to un premises See, der the rule.1 Sears, Lassila v. Roebuck & Co. 302 350, (1974) (compensation 224 Minn. 519 W. awarded to employee injured during unsupervised unpaid, period operated by employer employees). for convenience However, here the premises was off the at the time injury, whether, notwithstanding and so the compensation. she still is to entitled
Employee’s argument support basic her claim to com- (a) grassy mall on she and her fellow employees frequently ate their lunch was in effect premises of her (b) following employment, she was the cus- tomary building and used route between the and the hit, (c) when she that route 1 general-premises Larson restates rule as follows: “As to em- ployees having place work, injuries occurring fixed hours on the premises to and from work before or after work- * * compensable or hours at lunchtime are Compensation Law, § excep- justify premises
sufficiently connected injuries of an denying compensation general tion to the rule he is off the when rejected the three commissioners A two of reasoning being not argument, stepped and that once she left sidewalk, general public she was not connected. that occurred was recent primarily on relied Accounting Service, Inc. case Farmers Union Goff v. stating felt (1976), that he Minn. 241 N. 2dW. instant case was crossing struck a car as she was employee parking way midblock on street she the street from the
which was across there crosswalks which tunnel, route which could the midblock have well as *3 took was the one other which and most of the employees the customarily a custom which affirming compensation that award, aware. In court a this stated job there- employee’s this route and that compensation notwithstanding fore proper that the fact employee’s injury premises. occurred off the arguing indistinguishable, dissent- that the Goff case is First, ing points. that he commissioner made a number stated fact lunch that in case occurred this by hour rather than after work no We itself made difference. because, as trea- with this Larson states in his Professor tise, trip away “the pur- from and for the back pose getting indistinguishable principle from the lunch is in trip beginning day, be and should end of the work governed by exceptions.” the same rules Compensation, § n by The point main made is one with specifically, which took issue, employer’s area, part lot in is like or not area to Whether the mall which walking may employer’s premises part said to be unquestionably owned in decisive this The mall case. by departments by employees and was used various state the area is their lunch conclude hours. We employer’s case is indis- premises, therefore the tinguishable from Goff. point precisely found in on this issue
We have not cases reaching part upon conclusion, but we have relied Commission, Ill. Jewel Cos. v. Industrial 2d 310 N. E. (1974). Claimant in that case worked in a indus park by trial maintained his who had established sev eral employees. cafeterias and restaurants for the On his lunch hour injured claimant was to a cafeteria in dif ferent section park than that which Af firming award, the court held all part terias effect a employer’s premises. in the instant case was not while walk- from the Centennial Capitol in order to Capitol one of the other cafeterias How-
ever, the complex openly and is by used state aas lunch hour picnic and recreation area in the summer months. In on some sum- days mer “lures” onto the mall at time sponsoring noon hour concerts. the issue is close, we believe that park under circumstances the should be deemed to be employer’s premises, making the Goff case
Reversed.
Otis, my distinguishable. *4 opinion, entirely There, In Goff is the em- ployer parking furnished the rented across from employees’ place business, although discouraged jaywalking, employees from take did not effective prevent In measures to held the lot was it. Goff we expected employees could be working premises imagination begin day’s By no stretch and end their work. working premises regarded part of the as can the mall be greater Building. They have no for any employee such non-state privilege area to use that away. Had the a block employed Roebuck those at Sears while, lunch, School to the Vocational any different, but not have been her status as have been denied benefits. she would affording health and ac- my opinion, the is now simply had the because she insurance to a state cident time, being injured jaywalking on her own misfortune of public for a her headed off choosing. activity I not an This submit which under own performed the statute was in the course construction of the State Minnesota. with Sheran, (dissenting). Justice Chief expressed by I the views Mr. Justice Otis. Rogosheske, (dissenting). Justice join I Mr. the dissent of Justice Otis.
Peterson, join
I the dissent Justice Otis. Mr. ANDERSON,
IN RE THE HONORABLE DONALD E. OF JUDGE DISTRICT COURT.
252N. W.
April