Oliver v. Wyandotte Industries Corporation

M. Glenys OLIVER

WYANDOTTE INDUSTRIES COR-

PORATION

&/or

Travelers Insurance Company.

Supreme Maine. Judicial

July 31, 1973. by Clinton B.

Perkins & Townsend Perkins, Townsend, George Skowheg- W. na, plaintiff.

Mahoney, Robinson, Mahoney & Nor- Portland, Hanson, man Robert F. defendant. DUFRESNE, J.,

Before C. and WEB- BER, POMEROY, WEATHERBEE, ARCHIBALD, WERNICK JJ. WEATHERBEE, Justice. appeal pro decree forma

On appel- denying compensation workmen’s not in dis- lant. material pute. February left

On Petitioner plant employed by Defend- where she was completed her corporation. ant She returning day to her and was work for in her her automobile She entered home. drove about employer’s parking lot private road along a mile quarter of which, Road Head of Falls known as was main- open public, although employer. by her tained and controlled passes rises on incline This road immediately underpass through a railroad Street, before it enters Front is a two street in Front Street Waterville. wide feet approximately lane northerly carrying one pri- emerging from direction and one right turn amake required vate road flowing north. The line of traffic into the and there icy slippery private road was Front approaching on whether traffic at its intersection high were snowbanks car, the street. until had entered Street she The Petitioner’s with Front Street. making process of while she was hearing The ruled Commissioner proceeding turn, by a this was struck car ap- private that the of road condition There no direct evi- on Front Street. not proaching and at intersection was part of Pe- to whether dence as or of Petition- relevant to the issue whether private remained on the titioner’s car oc- to have er’s accident can be considered is evi- impact there at the of but moment arisen of and to have curred the course could Commissioner dence from which the He denied com- out substantially all if reasonably infer that pensation ex- ruling that “Petitioner on Front Street. all her car was public”. posed no risk than to side hit on the left car was Petitioner’s very impact was and the left front on issue of when an accident The More- the street. near the center line of to may properly be said sup- lends over, testimony Petitioner’s own in the course of arise out and occur inference. port to this employment has been before actually turning onto You were “Q. several times. hit, you got Front Street when you not? This Roberts’ Case, 124 126 Yes, Me. A. 573 go quite A. but I had to out there employee entering an injury ways suffered to get on there. employer on or Q. You had to ease out— pro employer way maintained premises, or ingress egress vide A. To see out around. right use which the has the Q. your pull You car out onto This purposes, compensable. Front Street to see? position has reaffirmed Wheeler’s been 91, 94, 331 Case, 159 A. 131 Me. A. Yes. Case, Me. 62 143 and in Dinsmore’s Q. then you And you didn’t A (1948). .2d 205 started — see anything, you started to turn you were hit? consistently recognized We have principle that accidents on A. right.” That’s public streets when the merely It is at least clear that Petitioner ma- employment compensable.1 are not While neuvering position take line principle we to this have referred proceeding Front Street applied we it not street” rule have oncoming time was struck car. arbitrary a convenient delineation of Petitioner, responsibility outer limits of the seeking compensation, recognition but that it is necessitated contended the location and condition is ex private of the that when the road combined with the hazards, more, presence posed no the in- high of the snowbanks at to the same travelling resulted in a blind and hazard- other members of tersection em ous entrance onto Front She testi- accident cannot have arisen out Street. ployment. fied ascertain that she was unable to Case, Case, 126 Me. 135 Me. 140 365 Paulauskis’ A. son’s 126 A. (1927); (1928); Case, Case, 131 Kinslow’s 126 Me. Wheeler’s Me. Case, (1927); (1932); A. Ferreri’s A. 331 Dinsmore’s (1927); (1948). 138 A. Raw- Me. 62 A.2d 205 very highway ment of the construc- responsibil- Our extend reluctance to ity public way employed. has tion of employer into the which he was however, accept- opened road had not been travel. our paralleled, found to which Babine certain fact situa- We risks ance the truth subjected logically the hazards of himself were con- may tions risks of struction with the carry entered which were inconsistent has over after analyzing travel. way.2 Dinsmore, earlier cases of Paulauskis coverage in This denied Rawson’s Court Kinslow, in each of we noted that those Case, an (1928) 126 Me. 140 A. 365 to cases “the had left the employee zone icy a employee fell on an on who sidewalk employment and entered the created risk returning from his street while hazard, risks area shared of common carrying during home his lunch hour and equally public”. the by members of all his mail he received had at We have had to examine a arriving before not occasion the Post Office situation himself has general employee where the The the home. resulting left the and is in the injury employer’s premises rule from an acci- that actually within the compensable dent is not street but is still person employment is area of risk and there was lit- though injured the even precedent acknowledged any the way guide but tle to Commis- to from work exceptions that to this The sioner in his there are rule. evaluation of evidence. not them,3 did Court noted four of but Paul, City In Nelson 249 St. Minn. suggest not that there were others. 53, 81 the Petitioner N.W.2d present found that “the was a teacher way who was on her to exceptions” does not fall within these walking along work and the was in that the concluded when Petitioner was adjacent sidewalk to the school position the street he was in no different when she was struck a ball which had employee going from that to grounds by been batted out of the school his home and his work. employer student. had contended that causally In Petitioner’s injury was not con- Corpora- v. Lane Babine Construction tion, employment nected with her and that be- 153 Me. A.2d 625 we cause the Petitioner still outside dealt was with a situation col- Babine geographical employment lided area of her when truck driv- while struck, not injury her did occur uncompleted seg- to a still work over “(1) employment requires Where We found such to have been the case employee highway; subject fireman, travel on the to where a to all call at employer times, injured way contracts to and Where the on his home transportation (Fogg’s does to and from furnish lunch 125 Me. work; employee (1926)); employee is A. Where the sub- where ject calls, emergency convey case of was on his lunch fireman; employee employer ance furnished Where in order doing something using highway (Beers’ Case, is save time 125 Me. employment, (1925)); agree incidental with the A. 350 where to his employer.” knowledge approval employment provided ment of employer discussing transportation Rawson we do would furnish today suggest employee’s home intend to to the area might daily per where work similar situation we con- was to be formed, clude ade- pro- which travel em ployee quately (Littlefield’s Case, brought himself within exception. and, (1927)); tection of 136 A. 724 the fourth using pub where the pursuance lic of his (Kimball’s Case, 132 Me. 168 A. (1933)). transporta- contracts to and does furnish employment. The Court her work; where and from saying: 3) rejected arguments these calls, emergency subject inju- case the “. . instant . firemen; the case of 4) hazard, batting of a ry-producing doing using spon- ball, part game activities employment, something incidental to his by the children on sored for the school approval of knowledge and with the prem- playground, originated Case, 126 Me. employer. Rawson’s See Employee’s duties employer. ises of the 365.” 140 A. supervision included the children’s Clearly, inju- her playground activities. posi- that the Commissioner’s We believe ry arose out of the effec- tion on state of the law excluded claim

tive consideration of Petitioner’s prem- dangerous existed on condition hold, enough as we must here to It provide ises maintained applica- clearly any reasonable do under place of egress ingress to or Act, Compensation Workmen’s prem- wit, from the a blind exit work —to that whenever the awas public street —which ises into the spill boundary injure over line and public travelling to the hazard not common employee an in- his his and cause of her accident. awas jury space statutory arises within the employer’s premises limitations of the ac opinion, the Petitioner’s In our compensable having and is arisen it is found compensable if cident would be ” the course of the . . . existed on that condition Paul, City supra, Nelson of St. em premises hazardous which made Minn, at N.W.2d and was public street ployee’s into exit being in present It was the contention of the Pe- in fact a cause private way titioner that over which reached street. jured had after she public she travelled to reach the street was be: entry will present so situated as her blind public entrance to street which it made ordered Appeal sustained. Further impossible for her to determine whether fees and an to cover allowance $350.00 traffic was her approaching from left until counsel, plus cost of expenses of actually she was so far into the street that record, paid by the Defendants already exposed danger. she was Petitioner. Court, the words of she the Minnesota that a claimed DUFRESNE, J., result. C. concurs employer public spilled over street. WEBBER, (dissenting). compensation, The Commissioner denied Justice

holding that: appeal. view deny I would concept departs general today “The from the the Court rule in Maine is that off-premises heretofore created “employment risk” compensa- accidents are not defined clearly ble. Wheeler’s well understood 131 Me. 159 A. coverage If the Maine extension of accident going occurs while law. typical premises, work or involved after uncer- compensable create cannot fail to subject to street accident the follow- unnecessarily dif- ing exceptions: Bar and employ- tainties for the 1) where by the Court requires problems ment ficult resolution to travel on highway; on a case employer where the basis. 2) fairly fully employer’s plant The facts are stated vehicular access opinion. the Court’s As therein nearest street. In that case specifically employer found that “Pe- Commissioner obtained from the Rail- exposed right risk private way titioner was to no “the to use this public.” plant, than the Under well established with its connection of in- means * * * principles gress rea- egress the evidence and inferences its em- sonably ployees work,” going to be drawn therefrom must be to and from their light necessary viewed most favorable to the “so far as was uses, finding. kept repair.” evidence for its Commissioner’s On the Our presented properly he that Court dealt could conclude with the “in the course of his petitioner employment” requirement left the in these terms: edged to a car into Front Street construing “In phrase the courts are oncoming she could traf- see not in accord as to when the ‘course of fic; upon judgment she that based employment’ begins and ends. Two speed ap- then made of the and distance of rules, however, appear generally to be stop proaching vehicles she elected not to accepted: First, injuries received and wait but rather to seek to' enter in going to and from his them; stream of traffic ahead and that work on a was thereafter involved an accident conveyance, convey unless means of I center of the would ance is furnished employer,2 emphasize only that there is no evidence not received in ‘the course of em plowed accumulation of * * * ; ployment’ Second, ‘the in along snow the shoulder Front Street employment’ begin course of his does not oncoming the direction of traffic had been and end with the actual work he was placed employer. there employed do, period but covers the be presents The case as to when tween his entering employer’s prem issue his public highway may accident on the ises a beginning reasonable time before properly be said to arise out and occur his actual and work his course of within a reasonable time after day’s his work is done and during Except of clearly case defined hour, usual being place lunch he in any circumstances,1 applicable here, we may where he reasonably be in connec consistently required have thus far that an entering with his duties or leav accident, compensable, to be be shown to premises by any way may rea he have occurred on in owned or sonably (Emphasis select.” mine) some manner controlled or used the em- ployer. In Roberts’ Case 124 Me. The (1924) partic- concluded under the 129, employee 126 A. 573 the was killed in ular circumstances of the case the location a railroad crossing accident while travers- properly regarded the accident could ing by private automobile a part road over land premises. There of the is, Railroad which however, constituted the negative a implication that if stating general transportation work; (3) 1. After rule that “an from injury resulting subject employee from in an accident a Where the is to emer compensable gency calls, ; is not even as in the of the fireman case though injured person way (4) employee using high is on his Where the work,” doing something to or in his our Court incidental to his Case, (1928) employment, knowledge ap Rawson’s Me. 365, 366, proval employer.” 140 A. stated the exceptions being: “(1) Where the employment requires applied exception to trav 2. This Little ; highway (2) el on the Where the em field’s Case 126 Me. 136 A. ployer contracts to and does furnish rule,3 completed egress exceptions “public onto to the street” Me. thereafter been in- Rawson’s 563, 140 em- crossing accident, coverage such A. 365 denied to an volved railroad ployee icy been deemed to who fell on an accident would not have sidewalk his returning have occurred em- street while “in the course his Indeed, carrying home ployment.” was the result his lunch hour and he A. mail had received Paulauskis’ Case 126 Me. was killed in at the Post Office. railroad on his crossing accident equally “pub An strict adherence to the driving highway, work while on a lic rule is discernable in street” Wheeler’s crossing being about 125 feet “from Case (1932) 132 159 A. 331. Me. Court conclud- door mill.” The In that had erected “the ed that words ‘out of’ refer the ori- company provide village housing for accident, gin, cause employees those of its who desired to live time, place ‘in the to the words course of’ working there while construction under which it oc- circumstances away. village a dam distance some curred,” “that an occur- and held accident streets were maintained and controlled ring upon public way, when employer. claimant, resided who duty upon him incumbent prosecuting no village, outside the took his meals employment, reason com- village. Leaving house within the pensable arising out of em- because not location, job house to start ployment, and not the course claimant village fell on ice employment.” governed of his This rule Our Court concluded the street “was Me. decision Kinslow’s Case not built provide and maintained to access (automobile 136 A. 724 accident on but the bene public street). might fit of who those choose to live Our Court rigidly adhered settlement”, “accordingly and that rule in street” Ferreri’s Case governed cases decision is to be those 561. In that case the em- A. deny compensation injuries ployee working for a who contractor employees public highway suffered on completed had of a construction way while on their to or work.” except highway final work on concrete Case, supra, Distinguishing Roberts’ endwalls, guard culvert earth shoulders however, said, is, “It established injured rails. Petitioner while walk- was injury his employee an an suffered way highway on the to his work way entering to or or from while coverage, the Court Denying location. employer his on a of portion the fact that the traveled stressed provide employer to maintained highway completed opened had been ingress egress or premises, from the to or public travel, plain- to and concluded that has a use for employer right to which the “exposed same tiff was risk to purpose, received course pedestrian any position the same in and, employment, arising out of exposed. would have been The * * * employment, compensable. employment.” to no relation his the em- The so much whether test is not place where ployer controls the owns Holding had failed to that claimant occurs, injury but rather whether bring himself within might fully we situation exceptions in a similar factual set forth 3. The discussing Rawson, that such an not now conclude supra. In Footnote brought adequately development himself within merely liad trace I intend to exception. protection juris- the fourth “public in this rule of the street” suggest I do intend to diction. dealt with the converse situation ap- on the premises or within the happens supra. in Ferreri’s Babine with work premises, proaches constructing segment employer was mine) performed.” (Emphasis is to he opened which had not Me. Case Dinsmore’s injured public. The was prob- brings us even closer to the A.2d 205 work area. driving while within this effect lem at hand since rested sustaining an award we decision requested “public to liberalize street” did on the fact that the accident squarely compensable injuries holding rule suf- public highway but rather not occur on “ fered ‘on by the em “premises” controlled employer, another than his the work ployer and where * * * place, yet so close to . progressing. engaged was zone, labors, envi- scene within digression no Thus Babine offered effect, ronments, be, hazards, as to respect “public precedent Maine protection of at the and under the fatal accident stemmed streets.” Babine’s ” Upon leaving work, the em- the act.’ arising from his directly from a hazard employer’s premises on foot ployee left the turning out around employment. While public high- and entered and crossed the spreader stone he was colli way. parking employer maintained sion with his truck. In that opposite lot on the side of said, connection we “There can be no daily employee’s natural and doubt but that whole course parking travel was lot to still across area, turnpike Ba travel over the Mr. thence another another street and constantly exposed bine would have been his automobile was private lot on which upon high the risks and hazards attendant Crossing parked. the street front progress.” construction Babine pass plant, employee sought between companion applied followed and op- parked along several two of busses case of v. Lane Const. Co. Getchell were maintained posite curb. These busses A.2d certain em- by the to deliver caught ployees to their homes. He was again requested We are now reconsid- by a of one of these movement rule, er and “liberalize” our street” reviewing a of au- After number vehicles. using the instant case as a vehicle for that jurisdictions and con- thorities from other purpose. My reluctance protec- to extend they presented generally cluding that no tion into the way where the risks or accepted principle applicable of law wholly hazards are or substantially those it, before the Court concluded common to the from an stems street, the claimant when he entered made, that once exception awareness agent” a “free and that he suffered increasingly it becomes difficult to deter- more, risks, 'and no that were “the same any degree mine logic and consist- every there- confronting each and traveler ency stop. agree where to All authorities deemed it on at the time.” The Court also protected that the line of the zone must be steadfastly significant although it had point jurisdiction, drawn at some since no street” adhered to rule ascertain, far so I can protec- as affords Legislature many years, the while amend- over the entire course respects ing many the Act in had not seen of his travel to or from work over “by enlarge coverage changing fit highways and A review of the streets. phrase of the established connotation suggests cases to me that the zone ‘injury arising accident out of and extended, protection has been the new ” ** * employment.’ be, any- imposed have tended to limits thing, arbitrary more than the case when In Babine v. Lane Co. 153 Const. point entry the line is at the presented A.2d 625 drawn we were to fixed and its confinement public street. directional departure from the rails, treated the a number of courts have Com- this connection Larson’s Workmen’s crossing premises as such a off pensation Law, 15.12 contains railroad Vol. Sec. employed “special reasoning hazard.” The this sound admonition: Forests, Jaynes v. Potlatch Inc. law, problem when It is familiar fairly 1018 is Idaho 271 P.2d perhaps sharp, objective, and somewhat compen- representative affording cases * * *, drawn, arbitrary line has been drove In that sation. case line be to encounter demands that premises, pass- from the his car the closest blurred a little to take care of gatehouse employ- maintained example, says that For one writer cases. er, public way feet to a along a about 200 why principle there is reason in states no accident crossing railroad where the fatal protect employees ‘for a rea- should not gateman ordinarily acted as occurred. The reaching aft- distance’ sonable before flagman crossing shift employer’s premises. er changes plant but down when was shut however, only prob- This, a new raises only prog- maintenance work was raises a solving lem without It first. ress, here, flagman as the case no provides no problem new because duty. Court, speaking “spe- on which the reasonableness standard doctrine, part, cial hazard” said “[I]t judged. the distance can be It substi- upon necessarily nearness to the based subjective inter- widely-varying tutes the plant upon nor reasonable distance there- pretation by dif- distance’ of ‘reasonable surrounding identifying or even judges ferent administrators and for the premises integral part area physical boundary fact of a line. At the practical purposes upon for all a causal but time, original same it does solve the the work the haz- relationship between problem, premises each time the because distinguish between Declining ard.” distance,’ are extended a ‘reasonable injuries pri- off occur inevitably there will arise new cases property pub- vate and those only slightly beyond —and highways, lic streets never- cry drawing of unfairness of distinctions carefully limited its intended “ex- theless only a based on few feet of will distance off-premises tension “a rule” to * * * once more be heard. crossing.” Expressly hazardous railroad prior overruled case of ex State is just questions It as these that Timber Co. rel. Gallet v. Clearwater great majority courts, have led the in- Idaho P. perhaps that are reasons ad- much courts, volving crossing. Not all the same necessity logic, adopt ministrative however, pro- seen fit have to extend rule.” crossing a railroad on a tected zone to denied in Compensation The most ground exception common Douglas Snodgrass (1965— Aircraft Co. has “special been the haz- existence of 463; Okl.) Joyner’s Bronson v. 406 P.2d ard,” deemed to become a hazard of the Elect., Minn. Inc. Silver & employment, upon or at least the 678; compare but 127 N.W.2d employee’s normal route of Johannsen access to Co. v. Acton Construction plant. It is and indeed vir- difficult Minn. N.W.2d tually impossible reconcile the results many involving “special the so-called cases crossings have That railroad the hazard” situations. of Illustrative unique presenting a somewhat viewed as problem are the so-called railroad cases. by “special hazard” evidenced form of Perhaps part great of the because have de- majority of courts the fact that train, weight power of a railroad the ice compensable a fall on clined to make abrupt stop bringing it difficulty 868 proximi- coming’ and has sidewalk even in entered area

on close ty employment In v. involves a factual determina- plant entrance.4 Brousseau 493, 130 The Court (1957) Blackstone Mills 100 N.H. tion.” was of view that the employee, being required day each A.2d 543 the on her work to turn icy public employer’s prem- about off slipped sidewalk 200 into his ises, exposed particular Not- “was place feet to a risk not from by greater generally.” sup- shared In that “in a number of cases re- denied,” port its covery statement its result “ac- has been was relationship cords with the trend of decisions in other unable causal to find be- states,” the employ- Court cited three cases which injury tween the and the risks of support view fail to recovery, ment and “not statement. denied because is our The first of these Babine injury occurred off the cases v. Co., supra, and on a sidewalk but because it did Lane Construction which as we steadfastly of and in the have seen adheres to the arise out “off premises” employment.” fell 2 Where the street” rules. The entrance, City or 3 feet rea- second v. Paul from the same Nelson St. 53, produced (1957) Tromba 249 soning the same result in Minn. 81 N.W.2d 272. 186, 3, walking along 94 R.I. A.2d that case a teacher (1962) v. Harwood 177 Mfg. Corp. play- followed in Peters v. sidewalk the school Bristol beside 255, (1962) ground pupils 94 R.I. 179A.2d where 853. some of playing ball. She was struck directly I now turn to consideration by Granting compensation, a batted ball. atten- four cases which have come to our controlling Court stated the factor tion, closely the facts of which more re- these terms: semble those instant The cas- case. es are evenly injury-producing divided on the of com- “In the instant case the issue hazard, ball, pensability part under such as a batting circumstances. of a game sponsored activities 1. Greydanus v. Acc. Industrial play- on its school children 490, Comm. (1965) Cal.Rptr. 63 Cal.2d 47 ground, originated employee, 407 P.2d 296 the driving his employer. Employee’s duties includ- way work, automobile on his completed supervision play- ed the of the children’s a left turn to enter his employer’s drive- Clearly, ground injury activities. way. car, His still in public way, (Empha- employment.” arose out of the by a struck vehicle attempting pass mine) sis on the left. In sustaining recovery, point said was “clear at Nelson the Minneso- That was intended which an employee longer ‘going peculiar is no or ta Court to be limited to Comm. Acton v. Tea Co. Hammond feet Drug Gullo v. American Lead Pencil Co. 119 N.J.L. 182 Kan. Madison v. S.W.2d Several of discussed (20 from Co. entrance) feet ^[1970] Wymore (1951-St. entrance) v. Neb. the cases (a Key Great Atlantic 318 P.2d 200 Wis. 56 N.J. few feet ; Larson in Work Clothes 196 A. 438 entrance) School Dist. Krebs ; Louis Donzelot v. Park denying recovery- from 264 A.2d N.W.2d 368 C.A.Mo.) ; (6 Sec. entrance) Amento v. 227 N.W. Industrial & No. (but Pacific 15.12: 204) ; feet 114 cf. (2 ; Bond operated ards crossing traffic was State entrance). cluding Education recovery S.W.2d Or. general of the road 82 N.Y.S.2d 1 Industrial Acc. Comm. Stores, exposed 356 P.2d 524 where (1965-St. public.” See also controlled Illustrative of Inc. granted necessity company, in. street (1948) Kammeyer Louis (3 degree Montgomery the Court con C.A.Mo.) cases in 274 4 “to the front of the crossing steps v. Bd. of App.Div. from light than haz 393 v. greater degree than the hazards “injury-producing and cases in which the * * * being public, regarded common he is prem originated on the employment.” within the course of his abundantly ises” made clear in later Court’s of Nelson its discussion The Court deemed immaterial whether case v. Acton Construction Johannsen public highway the accident occurs on the 826, 540, (1963) Minn. Co. N.W.2d private special road. The or risks Moreover, cited 828. Johannsen necessity making to a left be the approval in with evident its earlier decision plywood into turn the area “where Chocolates, Inc. v. Sommers Schuler ‘jitneys’ leaving” truck and enter to 180, in (1953) 239 Minn. 58 N.W.2d highway, and the fact that the flatbed recovery em where the which was denied “fairly long is a truck vehicle” and “must icy adjacent ployee fell on an sidewalk swing to the far left make the turn” employer’s premises. case third highway. onto the concluded Bri upon is Barnett v. Greydanus relied general public ex would be tling (1932) Cafeteria Co. 225 Ala. as the posed to the same 143 So. 813. In a divided Court traveling directly north and would granted compensation who emphasis placed pres south.” The icy public fell on an sidewalk front employer’s ence of the vehicles and their feet employer’s and about 20 operation entry leaves some majority opinion from the entrance. The uncertainty mind to what result emphasized use the employer made Oregon Court would reach it were as part sidewalk business its with, dealing only example, Grey premises, and was no doubt influenced danus facts. part that water used to wash plate glass had frozen windows Templet In v. Intracoastal Truck formed the ice on the fall occurred. Line, Inc. La. So.2d 74 vigorous adopted In a minority dissent the opposite the Court reached conclusion view that the risk of a fall com recovery. em- and denied In that case the mon to the using sidewalk. ployee’s struck from the rear vehicle was my view none of the three cited cases operated by a trav- a car member support compensability lends at- eling while the Greydanus situation. tempting a left turn from the premises. employer’s Louisiana Douglas Plywood Fir Nelson v. “proximity” adheres the “threshold” or plain- Co. 260 Or. 488 P.2d 795 in- permitting compensation doctrine5 vehicle, travel- tiff was when her juries sustained an accident public highway, began south a left of, hours, off working or after before private turn to road enter to, proximity but within close Her leading un- employer. The Louisiana Court vehicle struck rule, however, applying derstands this private coming flatbed truck out when there exists distinctive swinging turn onto wide to going to travel risk for the Oregon highway. The Court stated the risk coming rule in these terms: adjacent immediately area exists presented place of On the employment requires work. employee’s “If or special risk discern no to or the Court could an entrance exit him use unusual, peculiar exposes him to hazard to the from his work (1928) 276 reaf Giles U.S. 5. This was announced and Brick Co. v. doctrine Cudahy Packing both railroad L.Ed. of Nebras 48 S.Ct. firmed Co. crossing 263 U.S. cases. ka Parramore and Bountiful 68 L.Ed. 366 S.Ct. employment nor employees public cur in turning off the out of would not did it arise When “which be encountered her general public plaintiff such road or drove vehicle into turning off similarly flowing on Front other roads stream of north situated.” em- importance Street, effectively left the of no fact that zone attached to the of employee’s ployment front wheel of vehicle risks and entered the zone left may public trav- have reached to the traffic hazards common eling By the car the accident street. her own admis- since was struck and on that petitioner occurred street. moved into Front sion forward where she could observe Street Finally, I turn to consideration of deci- and then oncoming vehicles made v. Industrial Comm. Wilkinson sion to enter line of traffic. When- 2d calling Utah 464 P.2d After of operator seeks to enter a ever an flow in for employ- left traffic, lanes, out changing pulling whether plant on er’s his motorcycle, entered the stopped position at a com- from a curb or public street and crossed of traf- two lanes ramp ing in an entrance intersec- to make a attempting fic left turn. While streets, present always there is tion of crossing, this he was struck vehicle misjudgment space danger of of availa- coming from his left in a lane. southbound oper- danger negligent ble well statute, compensation liberal Utah’s unlike operator. risks ation another These are own, permits our recovery pub- every traveling member injured “by arising accident out of or anticipate successfully over- lic must the course of employment, wheresoever among These are the risks which come. mine) such injury (Emphasis occurred.” daily are the cause of accidents. here Plaintiff this accident admitted that indeed, were, They singly inor combina- did not occur “in the course of” his em- tion, They are the cause of this accident. ployment but it contended that did “arise any proper peculiar em- sense to the of” the employment. out The Utah Court ployment. disagreed stated, “The hazard at am, saying I as noted so earlier type person all that every has opinion, impressed this difficulties who enters or Compensa- leaves a street.” upon extending attendant the outer limits tion was denied. employment into the zone Although I an- recognize that we cannot Supposing that ticipate prejudge every factual situa- proceeded further, plaintiff had a few feet may presented, tion which in the future be completing her entrance into the stream presumably peculiar circumstances traffic, and had been struck from might prompt be shown which some would rear, could be said that the accident apparent departure cho- from what I have any necessity result less the of the initial rule,6 sen call our I con- street” making right turn into traffic clude as did the that Commission the traf- not, pro- intersection? If how far should fic accident in the instant case did not oc- tection Reverting continue? Greji- example, colloquy pushed 6. For there was some snow to caused be pres- respect the instant case with in such manner that it could height along properly argued ence and Front snowbanks be either special origi Street near There was intersection. street any employer’s premises, no evidence offer admitted nor nated on cf. Nel proof City Paul, supra, snow had son v. St. pushed into the from the business had so en employer’s premises. public way enlarge I neither intimate into the croached as to suggest risk, nor I what conclusion would the zone of created cf. Britling supra. reach if Co., under somewhat circum- similar Barnett Cafeteria stances it were shown be therefrom must viewed in facts, employee, in that drawn danus would the case, if, light most favorable to the Commis- protected turn- have been without finding. sioner’s stop preparatory ing, he had come to making a left turn and been struck He then continues: suddenly the rear? Or further back speed making such preparatory presented reduced he could the evidence “On following stop and a car petitioner been struck left properly that the conclude suddenly too close behind? Or had edged and making his changed preparatory point lanes to a where car into Front Street traffic; in the left turn and been struck car that oncoming she could see could easi- upon lane he entered? Illustrations made judgment based she ly multiplied suggesting that once approaching speed and distance of wall breached it is difficult to contain stop vehicles she and wait elected not protection line of flood. outer the stream of but rather to seek to enter ad- be drawn and I see no them; must somewhere and she traffic ahead of that arbitrary vantage illogical in substituting thereafter involved in an accident which, although a rule itself action for center of the street.” arbitrary, has at least the merit somewhat is that the In- agree I that the rule when I am being logical and understandable. has made dustrial Accident Commissioner ap- can be satisfied that it has been and fact, infer- finding the evidence plied consistency by degree of with some reasonably therefrom ences to be drawn Court, a case the Commission and the favorable light must most be viewed basis, producing results finding. to the Commissioner’s equitable employers employees. to both disposed I in favor of am not to abandon it however, with disagree, respectfully I uncertainty. a rule of conclusion Mr. Webber’s Justice properly have made could Commissioner fees deny appeal I would and allow I con- respect to what finding of fact with expenses appellant. case. issue in the controlling sider to be the record, the Commissioner I read the As POMEROY, special- (concurring Justice that if law to be governing interpreted the ly) : place which was in a injury occurred owned, I concur the result. I would add con- physically off underlying the rationale employer, comment such provided trolled my appeal must be sus- conclusion that issue wheth- fact determinative for rehear- tained and the case remanded in the course occurred injury er or not the ing. prompted I am because to do this

dissenting opinion appears to to be set me the Commissioner In his decree quite different framework off- Maine that the law his view of from those on conclusion employees are premises accidents based. one they fall into compensable unless dissenting in his specifically Mr. Webber described exceptions the four Justice has opinion has said that the Commissioner A. 365 Case, in Rawson’s exposed petitioner found that (1928).1 “[the] He public.” to no risk than the interpretation disagree with I principle then refers to well-established reasonably law. inferences evidence and supra, con opinion pointed in Rawson’s Mr. out As exceptions exclusive. to be listed sidered Justice Weatherbee I agree, anyway,” petitioner also do not precluded Mr. Web- vant Justice suggests, ber' explaining the Commissioner could what the true situation properly Consequently, reach the conclusion of was. the Commissioner injury point high- properly occurred at a could not conclude that she “left petitioner employer’s premises edged on- could have seen her car coming intelligent she made an Front Street to a where she proceed. decision to could see oncoming traffic and that based upon judgment she then made of the petitioner’s record demonstrates that speed approaching and distance vehicles attorney question: asked this stop elected not and wait but rather to seek to enter the stream of ahead “Q you Did say that you had just of her.” point reached the you you

could see when were hit ? I concur the conclusions reached appeal majority Court that the “A Well —” must be sustained because I conclude that The following colloquy then occurred: when a which makes en condition exists egress employer’s trance to and Employer’s object Counsel: “I employees and premises extrahazardous to form question.” traveling such hazard not common to the “No, Commissioner: it is not relevant public,. “special there is a it can be said anyway.” hazard,” excep constituting off-premises non-liability rule.2 petitioner When the sought to show that point where the road met view should have the highway “dangerous was a intersec- permitted opportunity demonstrate tion,” permit the Commissioner refused to exist, special did if such that such the evidence to be labeling introduced accident, fact, though be the and that the “purely immaterial.” premises, off the oc- hazard created at a where the curred therefore, Obviously, the Commissioner operative and employment was still undisputed bottomed his conclusion controllingly effective. em- that the accident off the occurred ployer’s premises. me to authorizes eviden- Mr. WERNICK Because of Commissioner’s Justice in this concur- say joins with me that he

tiary ruling that whether or opinion. ring “not rele- up able to see employees cases, pensation because of “In almost all of tlie earliest running daily necessity many well, such the current cases special stress, gauntlet as out tune most courts struck element of hazard needed no concept they typically involving work-connec- the broad since were cases railway crossings rights-of-way. Be- tion. why course, days factory garden-site reason there is no fore the “Of exception park, plants special-hazard should and the industrial often special way applied nonrailroad located Larson, get pick Law of Workmen’s to them character.” one’s 15.13, Compensation, cited. through switching and cases tracks, sidings, § deny even main lines. To workmen’s com-

Case Details

Case Name: Oliver v. Wyandotte Industries Corporation

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: Jul 31, 1973

Citation: 308 A.2d 860

Court Abbreviation: Me.