*1 both convictions for criminal sexual conduct Justice. degree
in the second must be vacated. guilty Defendant was found by a district affirmed; Two convictions three convic- jury charge court of burglary, Minn. tions vacated. Stat. The trial court sen-
tenced defendant to 45 in prison, months which is the maximum sentence within the presumptive range sentence for the offense in question (severity offense) level IV by a person with defendant’s criminal history (six). score appeal judgment On this conviction, defendant seeks an outright Minnesota, Respondent, STATE reversal of his conviction on the ground that the state prove burgla- failed to that a YUNGK, Appellant. Dale William (as ry opposed attempted to an burglary) was committed or that he committed it. We hold that the evidence of defendant’s Supreme Court Minnesota. guilt was sufficient we affirm his con- viction. March 1983. JOHNSON, Respondent, Relator, (self-insured),
TORO CO. Minnesota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of intervenor, Respondent. No. CX-82-981. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Jones, Defender, C. Paul Public and Rob- Goodell, Defender,
ert D. Asst. Public Min-
neapolis, appellant. III, Gen.,
Hubert H. Humphrey, Atty. Coleman, Jr.,
Norman B. and Janet New-
berg Anderson, Sp. Gen., Asst. Attys. Kelly, Robert County Atty., Stillwa-
ter, for respondent. *2 are not in dispute.
The relevant exception few Since sponsored a dinner for its em- years, Toro ployees and retired be- turkeys fore Christmas and also distributed employees. to its Each who was working envelope would receive contain- ing computer and a card which exchange he could at the end of his shift for a turkey. Employee, an assembler at Toro’s plant in Windom since June forced to take a medical leave of absence in the fall of 1979 because of a nonwork-relat- ed hand but in December leave, still on medical she received a letter dinner, inviting her to attend the Christmas Armory to be held at the Windom on De- cember plant and to come to the turkey. to receive a It was employee’s understanding from this letter that she was required to appear and personnel card from the office in order to so she came to the plant that day turkey. to obtain her lot,
While still in Sanow, met Diane a relative who also plant. worked Ms. had al- Sanow ready obtained a card for employee and exchanged it a turkey, which she that point. Employee automobile, turned to walk to a friend’s but fell, slipped injuring her right foot and Morse, O’Gorman, Clinton Cottage & fracturing right ankle. This mishap Grove, for relator. resulted in 5 temporary months of total Gross, Holtum, Von Sieben & Schmidt disability and a permanent partial 10% dis- Stofferahn, and David A. Minneapolis, for ability ankle, of the right foot and Johnson. sought compensation. which she Whether Advani, Indru for Blue Cross on these Appeals proper- facts the Court of and Blue Shield of Minnesota. ly concluded that her arose out of the course of her was thus compensable is sole issue be- fore us.
WAHL, Justice. compensation judge, with whom one Appeals agreed, member of the Court of Toro Company seeks review of a decision determined that with respect of a divided Workers’ Compensation Court employer-employee Appeals contrary to the determi- holding, parties. nation of the existed between the He deter- compensation judge, that an mined also that by employee Johnson arose out of and in of the dinner and tur- ployment. We affirm. key de- rived no substantial benefit from performed the fact ceptance, imposed and thus that did out to the premis- arise of and in the pay, es to obtain his similar elements are ment. He relied on Ramaker v. present here. Toro had no contractu- While *3 obligation turkeys, al its cus- to furnish the Beecher, Co., Pasko v. 221 301 Minn. tom of a when giving employees turkey Franklin they pre-Christmas paycheck received their 176 72 N.W.2d reasonably anticipa- to the employees’ led (1970), which employer-spon- held that if receiving tion of that of form sored social functions the compensation.1 employee bonus And while improved benefit than employee not to required was the her accept injuries by sustained employees employer’s letter directed her to come to while going re- participating the she to it. wished turning from such are com- not presence Her there at injury the time of her pensable. thus clearly incident to the employment Because those cases com- had determined that, relationship, leading us to conclude as pensability by focusing primarily on wheth- cases, in paycheck employee’s the injury er the received substantial benefit out of in arose function, the the the majority of ployment. Court of Appeals held the rule set forth in conclusion, In reaching that we are aware inapplicable them to the circumstances at the of employee that time the injury presented Instead, majority here. the temporarily incapable her performing of injury stressed the fact that the on occurred clearly usual work. That fact re- not premises, the fact that Toro express- quire the conclusion that no ly directed to to to come the relationship then existed between the her turkey obtain and on the fact the that relationship ties —a which Toro in fact longstanding giving custom of each employ- the knowledged by offering employee ee a made it in effect an expected gifts it offered other employ- its of form bonus which view, ad- agree ees. Nor do we with the ee had anticipated acquiring because of her dissent, in ina- vanced the that employment relationship with the perform to that re- bility services on In our sufficiently view these factors are quires the conclusion that her is not significant support to the that conclusion of personal meaning within the employee’s injury did the arise out and in 176.011, If (1982). 16 subd. § employment. No are cases literally, to' this statute were be construed in precisely point, but it been has held both the by sustained an in predecessor by the of Appeals Court af- lot before or employer’s parking by jurisdictions courts in other an compensable, not ter his work would be by an re- who the Merrill v. J.C. clearly is not law. to employer’s premises turned the because Penney, (Minn.1977); 256 N.W.2d Goff required the employer him to do so in order Service, Accounting v. Farmers Union up to in pick paycheck his arose out of and (1976). Ad- the course A. employment. Oja See perform to mittedly, employee was not able Co., Inc., Guthrie & 8 W.C.D. 34 work on the date of her usual Miller v. Bakery, Grue’s W.C.D. employer’s but her Larson, 1A A. Law Workmen’s the employer- lot was as much result of Compensation, (1982). Although 26.30 § as was paycheck em- employers’ prem- cases stressed both the on their employees ployer’s obligation paycheck contractual to ises in cases. pay Contrary expressed holding only gift in a to the view in of cash substantial the dissent- ing opinion, perceive logical is a we reason amount bonus. from that attorney distinguishable fees of This situation is Employee is awarded required $400. in are employees premises to person employer’s is latter The paychecks. their PETERSON, Justice, dissenting. obli- premised employer’s contractual per- gation pay its my dissent. In view the respectfully formed, in connection with which the em- the conclusion that undisputed ployer imposes Carol Johnson’s did not picked up premises. be See arise out of and in the course of her em- relator, Larson, Compen- 1A A. Law of ployment Company. Toro Workmen's sation, by should be determined semantic As a basis rather decision, than substantive matters of fact. majority’s easy translation of customary gift this as “in effect” *4 dinner; Employee was invited to a buffet “expected form of bonus “required” she was neither “directed” nor anticipated” is which the had Similarly, to attend. she was offered a unprecedented. it for which was only necessary that she in advance
to obtain a card —at amost condition for AMDAHL, Justice, dissenting. Chief gift. PETERSON, join I in the J. dissent of applicable statute, 176.- (1982), provides: subd. 16 SIMONETT, Justice, dissenting. “Personal injury” injury arising means PETERSON, J. join I in the dissent of out of and in the course of * * *; but not cover an employee COYNE, Justice, dissenting. in, on, except engaged while or about the
premises where his services join in the dissent of J. part as a of such service at the during time of the the hours
of such service.
(Emphasis added). Clearly, employee was
on the at the time of her
accept gift and was not there because “require[d] part
services
of such service at the time of the
>>
* * *
JANSKY, Respondent,
R.
Leo
compensation judge
similarly
As the
had
reasoned,
of dinner
COMPANY,
COLD
GRANITE
SPRING
acceptance
self-insured, Respondent,
substantial benefit
to the
We
ourselves reached the same
in Ra
maker v.
Treasurer,
State
as Custodian
Co.,
v. Beecher
Pasko
Fund,
Compensation
Special
Relator.
ticipating from such func-
tions are compensable.