Trapp v. Sagle Volunteer Fire Department

Mitchell, d’Alene, A. Thomas Coeur for P.2d appellant. TRAPP, Claimant-Appellant, Agnes L. Sheils, Ellis, Boise, respon- Brown & Sheils, Jr., M. argued, dent. Max Boise. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPART

SAGLE MENT, Employer, and Insurance State

Fund, Surety, Defendants-Respondents. BAKES, Judge. Chief

No. 19305. Agnes Trapp Claimant L. appeals from an order of Industrial Commission de- Idaho, Supreme Court of claim nying against her Term, Boise March 1992. Insurance Trapp State Fund. claims July 1992. arguing fees under I.C. § Rehearing Sept. Denied 1992. that the Insurance State Fund contested her claim rea- “without Dissenting Opinion of Justice Bistline ground.” sonable The Industrial Commis- Rehearing on Denial of fees, sion her claim for attorney denied Sept. finding the State Insurance Fund did the case unreasonably. not defend We af- firm.

The claimant was a volunteer member Department Fire who had been department the fire solicited an to take (EMT) Emergency Medical Technician qualify Quick course order Re- (QRU) sponse emergency Unit medical 4, 1990, January treatment. On claim- injured ant in an automobile accident five occupants while she and other course, traveling car were to the EMT occupants all of were enrolled. accident, After the claimant filed benefits, claim for worker’s which the defended ground her travel at the time of “going-and- the accident was within the exception coming” compensability. rule hearing, After a the Industrial Commis- “special sion concluded errand” exсeption going-and-coming ap- rule plied within and therefore claimant was scope of her the time of the accident.1 The Commission the relevant summarized law as follows: order, doing explained ary special 1. As the Commission in its work hours is some "[I]t service generally employers held discharge are liable duty errand or the of some of or employees while com- for accidents their muting suffer injury employer, under of her an the direction ‘going-and- to and from work. This perfor- arising place to or from the en route coming compensability rule’ has arising the work is considered out of mance of spawned exceptions exceptions to ex- itself and in the course of Dameron being special ceptions, one errand rule. Garage, Trail Yellowstone employee, although regular her Where not at (1934).” business, place of even before custom- or after petition much in mechanical ommendation. for so On reconsidera deal not [W]e tion, that, a series of factors with the Commission stated rules but “The test the Commission reasonableness ultimately adopted which was in the Find light expertise. of its weigh in own must Fact, Law, ings of Conclusions and Or the work may occur at The accident in this a test der matter was which involves place in the site, a but must be where applying particular a series of factors to reasonably be; may it may worker facts, necessarily vary which with each hours, but during scheduled work occur noting After that it case.” was “the Claim time; may not it must be at a reasonable ant who first directed the Commission’s engaged precise in while worker's occur authority to attention this from the State pertain to job description, but must Co., Arizona Mining, Stewart [Johnson em- reasonably act incidental some Commission, Inc. v. Industrial 133 Ariz. work; may not occur while ployee’s (1982)supra P.2d ], which actually by the ordered performing work subsequently relied on to reach the decision in activity must be employer, but in underlying to favorable the Claimant the acquiesced. has employer [Citation matter,” the Commission concluded that personal not be It must so omitted.] surety’s argument the state of the arisen out of it cannot said have the application of the law evidence the course the five articulated the Commis factors pointing analysis re- After out opinion earlier was not sion’s unreasonable. light weighing a evidence quired Quintero Pillsbury This Court held involved, the Com- of the several factors Co., (1991), P.2d 843 identified five factors which mission that: necessary to were appellant had asserted The then the case.2 Commission evaluate pursuant decision The to award weighed the evidence relation to each with the Industrial Com- rests [72-804] ultimately con- in turn and the five factors mission. than clear cases we Other that, balance, acci- the claimant’s cluded on judgment of the Industrial defer arose of and injuries out dent Commission. [Citation omitted.] Vol- of her with experienced is well in deter- Commission ap- Department. Fire Neither side unteer mining what circumstances warrant the deci- Commission’s pealed Industrial attorney imposition of fees. sion. In Idaho at at 846. deci- receiving After the Commission’s Co., 97 Idaho Troutner v. Control Traffic sion, requesting filed motion claimant (1976), held that: 547 P.2d 1130 we 72-804,3 attorney I.C. fees under § for grounds The decision that exist surety employer its ground that awarding fees is claimant com- her claim worker’s had defended factual determination rests unreasonably. The Industrial pensation the Industrial Commission. a refer- [Citations the matter to referred conclusion of the Industri- ee, omitted.] that “the conduct of who concluded grounds no existed al Commission that was not unreasonable.” surety this case attorney fees in this case allowing rec- adopted the referee’s The Commission personal activity primarily enjoyment of 2. Those five factors Ari- for the from an were derived case, Supreme employee?” Min- Johnson Stewart zona Commission, ing 424, 133 Ariz. Industrial Inc. v. "(1) Did are: part: commis- reads in “If the I.C. 72-804 activity the substantial benefit inure to employer or his that the sion ... determines (2) activity engaged in employer? theWas compensation made contested a claim permission or at the discretion with the injured employee reasonable ... without (3) knowingly fur- employer? Did pay ground, employer shall reasonable ... activity which the the instrumentalities nish compensation fees in addition (4) out? Could the to be carried provided this law.....” reasonably reimburse- expect (5) activity engaged in? Was ment

S57 supported by prior case, substantial evidence and workers’ appeal. will not be set aside on America, v. Combined Ins. Cos. 98 Ida- (1977).5 ho 565 P.2d 1367 Chief Jus- 97 Idaho at 547 P.2d at 1133. opinion, tice Bakes authored that and it has In this the Industrial Commission since remained leading unscathed as concluded that Idaho case relating law precedent. applicable case law It is “special going- errand” conclusive as to the claim of and-coming rule was not definitive and that Agnes Trapp, namely, her entitlement to proposed by the rule the claimant from the compensation. It follows as day does fol- Arizona case of Johnson Mining Stewart Co., night, low Comm’n, I.C. 72-804 entitles her Inc. v. Industrial supra, § provided appropriate attorney award fees test. That test because of the required surety’s the Industrial unjustified Commission to unreasonable and deni- weigh regarding evidence each of five al of payments. I.C. 72- factors, not all of which were favorable Today’s mаjority 804. opinion, for whatev- the claimant in this order decide reason, er uphold determined to the Com- whether the claimant was within the course outrageous mission’s conclusion that scope of her After that surety “reasonably.” acted weighing balancing, the Commission Bakes, Justice paragraphs six of his concluded that legal the factual and issues Ridgway opinion, stated all that was neces- surety raised were not unreasonable sary proper for a reversing determination and therefore denied the claimant’s motion the Industrial Commission’suntoward deci- for attorney fees. denying sion compensation: experienced Commission “is well appellant Roger claimant Ridgway determining what circumstances warrant injured while he was in Salt Lake imposition fees,” and its City attending a two training week ses- determination, weighing operated sion by the respon- defendant of the evidence and the balancing of fac- dent tors, Combined supported Quintero Companies Insurance by the record. Co., Pillsbury applied America. He supra, and for workmen’s Troutner v. compensation benefits, supra. Accordingly, Control but the Industrial Traffic we find no abuse of discretion and affirm Commission denied his claim on the the Commission’s decision.4 ground that injury had not arisen out during of or the course employment respondent. Costs to No with Combined. Because the conclusion allowed. upon of law which this order was based McDEVITT, JJ., JOHNSON and was in error and because the decision of SCHILLING, Tern., Pro J. concur. indepen- commission did not contain grounds claim, dent denying we

BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting. reverse and proceed- remand ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‍for further ings. I. THE DIE WAS CAST ordaining

The die was cast proper In October of Ridgway answered disposition Agnes Trapp’s newspaper claims advertisement in which ion, 4. Our finding notwithstanding of no abuse of discretion in the that it was cited and relied Industrial Commission’s determination that the upon in the trial briefs of both claimant and surety unreasonably did not defend the claim is defendant. The defendant mentioned with, impliedly inconsistent nor does it Ridgway attempt in its to mislead the Commis- modify, holding Ridgway this Court's v. Com- sion, appears all of which is documented and America, bined Ins. Cos. genuine All of this creates concern that infra. the upon dissenting P.2d 1367 relied system may greatly overburdened and opinion of Justice Bistline. inadequately staffed to accommodate the bur- geoning population correspond- Unbelievable, true, but neither the Commis- injuries increase in accidental and resultant strikingly sion nor its two referees in the similar Agnes claims. Trapp compensation controversy showed being Ridgway opin- awareness of there employment in- to become between and the sought trainees accident Combined Ridgway signed а which to base surance salesmen. a conclusion that the Ward, agreement with Robert arose trainee accident out of an the course manager eight- for an Combined’s sale defendant.’ county' region in southwestern Idaho. Tr., added). p. 53 (Emphasis Sec. agreement Under Because, below, explain as we shall training a two week seminar attend has erroneously applied Commission operated in Lake Combined Salt special peculiar risk doctrine to provided for City. Ward and Combined claim, the matter is remanded to the Ridgway’s transportation Salt Lake pro- Industrial for further accommodations, be- City, motel travel ceedings. training the motel and the ses- tween recently pe- This Court considered the sions, per diem meals. for $6.00 risk doctrine in case of culiar the Clark began Mon- training program The Morine Daniel Const. ses- day, November 1974. Classroom P.2d 293 As we noted in every day for dur- were scheduled sions case, normally employee an travel- that except Sun- following the two weeks from ing to and work is not within the Sunday, 10. On that day, November course of his and is not cov- Ridgway and three other trainees were by compensation. ered workmen’s How- preparation for studying the motel at ever, is a recognized there training session. second week the rule where this travel work from noon, Ridgway Ron- Shortly before ‘sрecial exposure involves a to a hazard trainee, mo- Sparks, another left the ald peculiarly the or risk associated with hamburgers the purchase for tel employment’ cause the which is the of Sparks’ They car. group. traveled cases, injury In such injury. with- Sparks’ en a restaurant While route to scope coverage of the work- Ridgway by a train car was struck compensation men’s law. 98 Idaho at injured. is his claim that these It 115, 559 P.2d at As can be seen injuries compensable under were cited from the cases Clark Compensation Law. Workmen’s risk opinion, peculiar special or doc- Combined contested workmen’s employee only go- deals trine with claim, arguing among oth- situs, usually ing to and his work from indepen- things, Ridgway was an er place employer’s of business. and not Combined’s em- dent contractor applied appropriate The to be rule The Commission did ployee. Industrial scope com- determine workmen’s It concluded that not reach this issue. pensation coverage employees whose if Combined’s em- Ridgway even were away from the travel em- work entails nevertheless, ployee, employee ployer’s premises at which finds that the claim- ‘the Commission Larsen, 1in normally works is set forth performing no service for the ant was Law, Compensation 25.- Workmen’s the time the accident defendant at 00, p. 453: personal errand. purely was on a but ‘Employees whose work entails travel peculiar risk special was no or There premises employer’s away from claimant at that time caused to the jurisdictions majority held in the are only The by alleged his employ- of their within to be the acci- possible connection between during trip, ex- continuously ment alleged employment was and the dent departure on a a distinct cept when relationship the fact that but Thus, inju- errand is shown. personal defendant, the claimant would necessity arising out ries City. in Salt Lake not have been eating in restau- sleeping in hotels or ex- commission concludes usually away home are rants tremely connection does tenuous compensable.’ relationship causal held establish sufficient employee's requires Compounding surety’s When an him work careless or ne- away place travel from employer’s Agnes farious conduct its treatment of work, business or his place normal Trapp, it was aware is covered workmen’s indelibly documented its brief submit- to mat- while he attends ted to the Commission: eating securing lodging. ters such as or Claimants’ attendance at EMT necessary employees It is traveling completion course was personal attend to these order to needs of their duties as volunteer firеmen and carry work, employer’s out the often at a they so should not be considered to be employee. location unfamiliar traveling employees. expansive lan Thus, keeping in con- mind the liberal guage used the claimants to include given struction that is to work- attending workers school within the trav compensation laws, men’s Colson v. eling employee only rule is found within Steele, 348, 354, 73 Idaho concurring opinion only one (1953), the going risk to a incident joined justice Ridge other the writer. seeking nor- lodging restaurant should way Companies Combined Ins. [sic] mally be covered Com- Workmen’s America, 565 P.2d 1367 of (1977). pensation Law. Ridgway, 98 Idaho P.2d at R. 44-45. That recognize statement did added). (emphasis 1368-69 Because that in Ridgway, and of itself but was a base precedent unchallenged case law remains every canard which member of this Court later, years and intact fifteen it still stands challenged castigated, should have be- proposition for the same was then Instead, cause deception. of its intended announced; only controlling not is it here that statement has been allowed to stand above, message as stated sent but the out and it to has served swerve the Commis- by Ridgway clearly sureties do- informed away knowing sioners from is Trapp that in any subsequent business Idaho that totally to Ridgway. identical The formats controversy, sounding on an identical or indistinguishable. of the two are basis, similarly similar factual be would The Ridgway plurality opinion of Jus- as Ridgway. decided tices Donaldson Bistline was issued later, years Fifteen though as there were only supply amplification to some of Jus- Fund, Ridgway, no State Insurance the opinion. tice lead receiving Bakes’ On surety Depart- Volunteer Fire reading presumably the plurality opinion, ment, Agnes Trapp’s denied similar claim Justice Bakes saw no need to alter his notwithstanding following that Ridgway opinion iota one because of the content given surety Court had not any reason surety ordinary the Had the dissent. used to believe that this Court would retreat reading care in the it Ridgway opinions, holding. unanimous Nor has it readily would have observed that Justice today.6 being done so—until ever the Such in Bakes stated conclusion: existing affairs, state of it ill-behooved Fund, surety, necessary any traveling Insurance Because it deny State the legitimate employee maintain injured Agnes claim of himself while trav- Trapp, putting expense eling, ordinarily thus her an should counsel, retaining prove point traveling in order covered while to and from res- taurants, previously ingrained particular of law which had trip repre- been unless into Idaho law decision. Ridgway departure sents an unreasonable in order 119, 120, 646, relying Ridgway (1983); Idaho decisions include P.2d 647 re 666 and In Inc., Morgan 108, 109, Helicopters, Barker, 635, v. Columbia 118 Idaho 666 105 P.2d 636 347, 349, 1020, (1990); Kirkpat- 796 P.2d 1022 appeаls, The Florida court of first divi 559, 562, Sys., v. Transtector rick 114 Idaho 759 sion, Ridgway as in its cited authoritative two of 65, 871, (1988); Barker, P.2d 68 In re 110 Idaho Rigdon, decisions: Airlines v. Eastern 543 So.2d 1131, (1986); Wise v. Arnold (Fla. 1989), and Jean Barnes Collections Storage & 109 Idaho Transfer Elston, (Fla.1982). 413 So.2d 797 Fiest, Ross v. 105 Idaho Justice, purely personal activity authoring today’s some The pursue Chief Court, opinion provide for the does a fair employment connected with his those presentation of circumstances which necessary to maintain himself trav- while controversy. he addresses attendant to this eling. out, points yet only As he issue in need Ridgway, 565 P.2d at 1369. at of resolution is whether the Commission for its denial of the valid basis Ridgway surety, misstating it The as Agnes Trapp claim of fees did the brief filed with the Commis- pursuit her which she incurred indus sion, far, beyond far went the bounds trial accident claim. She asserts literary portraying license the scenario surety unreasonably acted and thus be recog- the long as not within per payment applica came liable for such traveling employee nized 72-804,8 tion of I.C. the essence of which general surety rule. went so far as obtaining prompt payment aimed at her at blatantly assert attendance claims; workers’ statute EMT course was for com- provides impetus assessing attorney pletion of her as a fireman and she duties against surety and/or travelling not be should considered who contest a claim without reаsonable 44; Surety’s grounds.9 15.7 employee. R. at Brief at stipulation 9. Particularly questionable executed and bothersome is 7. The of facts majority the claimant and and which the rationale which the rules Commission, filed, claimant, i.e., per- against presented and of "The Commission is record, experienced determining includes a statement which what manent well circum speak- lie imposition throws the back into mouth of stances warrant fees," citing page er: time Troutner for the first at Idaho, page of 837 P.2d. com- November claimant had On appealing phrase apparently sounded so application pleted repeated a second time at the bottom of the Department. At the Volunteer Fire experienced page: "The commission ‘is well in time, signed employer a she with her same determining what the circumstances warrant Intent, prerequisite was a Statement which fees,’ attorney imposition of and it determina emergency in Tech- to enrollment an Medical tion, weighing the of the evi (EMT) to be held nician course scheduled balancing supported by is dence and the factors Lake, period Spirit months in over a some 122 Idaho 837 P.2d at the record." 782 for No- The first class scheduled Idaho. Co., (quoting Pillsbury Quintero v. Idaho 119 16, 1989. vember 811 Troutner P.2d 843 doubt, Traffic be the R. In order that there no at 19. (1976)). Control Idaho P.2d 1130 547 Stipulation Statement of Intent are of Facts and Making unpalatable is fact that rationale Appendix A. hereto as attached years generally that the Commission over the experienced, many, many for has been provides:

8. Idaho Code 72-804 years compensation claimants benefitted Idaho in Attorney’s fees—Punitive costs 72-804. But, today’s accordingly. it said that can be or the commission certain cases.—If footing is on because not Commission not that any proceedings are before whom court long of the have tenures of all experience commissioners brought that the under this law determines Is it not the on the Commission. surety for employer or his contested a claim that of the Commission which fact the decision by injured employee compensation made just is decision of two this Court reviews employee without dependent of a deceased or commissioners? employer ground, or his or that an reasonable majority's Quintero citation The and Trout- surety neglected a reason- or refused within ner, Justice, readily per is understood the Chief receipt for after of a written claim able time background knowing. by those have the who injured employee compensation pay to the ending Beginning Quintero and with Bot- with compensation provided dependents the or his by toms, it as follows: "The decision to аward is law, grounds discon- or without reasonable pursuant rests with the Idaho fees to this section provided payment as tinued cases we defer to the Code. Other than clear owing by justly due and law Commission____ judgment The Commis- pay dependents, shall or his determining experienced what is well sion attorney fees in addition reasonable imposition of attor- attorney by circumstances warrant provided In all this law. request ney Respondent’s attorneys by fees. employed the fees of such cases Troutner, fees denied.” employees dependents their shall injured Troutner, Jus- the Chief written P.2d be fixed commission. controversy in this in a decision should not have been The arrived Court considered. skewered Before the somewhat condition. It was cited to both involved because coun- judgment passed Commission on helpful; it would be Industrial thought sel counsel claim, assigned Peggy it to referee phraseology. for claimant used that exact officer, hearing and her re- McMahon extremely competent recog- An referee sponsibility proposed was to of a deci- draft nized that rule was not Arizona incom- on the sion issue of State Insurance Fund’s patible fully case with Idaho law. She liability. Although she wrote re- what comprehended helpful, could that it gard liability to address that issue be- thereafter did not dis- Commission if ripen only surety it would was held сause agree. was also aware of this Court’s She compensation. liable opinion, Morgan v. Columbia then recent however, Unfortunately, after she had Inc., Helicopters, 347, 349, 118 Idaho liability, a sound on she rendered decision quoted P.2d from it: position elevated to an administrative Thus, engaged to be inquiry the Commission and thereafter both the and this Commission delegated refer- involved. when faced with cases of this sort prepare opinion ee T. Bauman to Jon departure whether from the claim- surety’s liability issue of personal ant’s so became by Agnes Trapp. fees incurred causal broke the connection to liability Referee McMahon’s decision has such an resulting extent acci- challenged by party. been either She longer dent could no be said to ‘arise out brought did focus on an Arizona decision of and in the of’ the claimant’s attention parties; her both that man- ner Arizona five factor rule surfaced in R. 58.10 In her consideration of the careful presented she the written decision which Morgan decision, Commission, synopsis which related a adopted. decision, why was no she There reason Arizona could not but tice, Associated, Inc., very language rejecting utilized that Gardner request paid by fees be conclusion claimant’s of the Indus- surety following grounds with his com- trial no success Commission that existed for pensation allowing attorney sup- claim. The for the construc- this case is company provided ported by tion had not Troutner with evidence and substantial will not be Constitution, surgical According appeal. needed Bakes, treatment. to Justice set aside on Art. 5, 9; 72-724, Appellant's there were "indications” in the record I.C. 732. § §§ mo- appeal that: tion for fees on is denied. Argonaut been Insurance had not able to com- 97 Idaho at P.2d at In 547 1132-33. Co., investigation plete its of Troutner’s activities Christensen v. Construction Idaho Calico 97 327, previous year (1975), the of to determine whether he 543 P.2d Justice Bakes au- which, injured employment, opinion citing been while other had thored the Court’s another 1973, report treating nor had it received a from the decision which written in he had Bottoms information, 487, District, physician. Irrigation Without this the Idaho 511 P.2d 304 surety could not be that it was following: language certain bound 'The included the provide surgical the treatment to Troutner. to in our as [citations omitted] earlier cases such requiring sureties, only employers not notice discussion, light foregoing the In of the con- but in addition consent from them to the Commission that Ar- clusion of Industrial obtain additional or different medical treat- neglected ment, gonaut Insurance had not or unrea- appears require- to an unwarranted be However, sonably delayed in of Trout- justified by its determination ment not the statute. by supported the notify claim is record and ner's because the claimant failed to his em- appeal. Attorney ployer seeking will not be disturbed on that the was additional medical care, granted are not a claimant as a matter surety fees to are not liable right compen- Christensen, under the Idaho workmen’s expenses.” of those additional 97 Ida- law, only may under but be recovered sation ho at 1169. 543 P.2d at in I.C. 72-804. the circumstances set forth awarding Agnes Trapp grounds state that decision that exist for 10. referee did not employment, departed is a factual from her and her deci- claimant determi- a Agnes Trapp accordingly rests the Industrial Com- sion was found nation which Stores, Inc., driving Spirit Mayo Safeway from Lake was with- toward mission. scope of her Wilson v. in the course and 457 P.2d 400 reading ing passages proposed, he to the benefit of which and which guided been

have blithely signed two opinions, authored Commissioners Ridgway both onto: Bakes and Bistline. respectively ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‍Justices eluded opinions two somehow her. Those underlying decision in this case [T]he page Morgan, 118

Almost a full half of heavily upon a test relied drawn from P.2d at was devoted Supreme of Arizona decision evident, quite As is later Ridgway. Co., to Mining Inc. v. Johnson Stewart Commission, writing opinion Commission, she 133 Ariz. Industrial Having Ridgway. thus shorted overlooked The Referee who just not having from the benefit of herself prepared underlying decision in this one, opinions, she lament- but two matter from Dam- declared ‘[A]side Dameron, that, supra, eron, “Aside from Supra, only ed which addresses a cou- factors, only couple any a of factors, which addresses ple of Idaho does have not any thoroughly explored not have case that has Idaho does case that has thoroughly explored question question whether car accident employ- training employees accident in which whether car route which en injuries sus- training en to a session ees route be said to sessions sustained can injuries arisen can said to have tained arisen out of an the course have employ- Fact, employment’ their Findings out and in the their being un- point, Law, At that p. ment.’’ R. 59. and Order at Conclusions written in to what been informed as obviously read the Referee Bauman did not pe- certainly in Ridgway, was order counsel, to base but content briefs opinion coun- ruse an cited both involved statutory proposed his decision sel, Mining v. Industrial Stewart reading of McMahon’s claim fees on Commission, 133 Ariz. paragraph of Bau- decision. The second it, (1982). Utilizing she the ratio- wrote out man’s rationale reads: entitled Agnes Trapp was nale which other than the claimant It none untenable compensation. McMahon found at- first the Commission’s who directed that, surety’s “An accident contention authority State tention [sic, which occurs while claimant worker] Arizona, re- subsequently program is involved in an educational favorable lied on reach decision McMahon unable to compensable.” underlying matter. in the Claimant v. Univer- discern merit Gentili the De- asserts that Now Claimant Idaho, 416 P.2d 507 sity of what done fendants should have (1966), decision, upon did, namely, resort Claimant herself its based defense. the validi- authority to assess out-of-state McMa- Ridgway, had been observed Claimant ty Evidently, of this claim. basically hon would have established sufficiently con- [Agnes was not Trapp] resorting to Ari- need for there was no Dameron, that the law Scriv- vinced But, earlier rule. zona’s five factor to ner, Zeier, certain England rule, stated, it essen- because the Arizona that she govern of this case the outcome guide tially is the as the rules same forego a of willing to discussion decisions, proba- case one, from of cases drawn but a number certain helpful or For bly might useful. jurisdictions, including be Johnson other with Idaho case law it does conflict counsel Claimant’s Stewart. developed years. over the precedent impressed the decision sufficiently in Supreme John- the Arizona Court II. A OF ERRORS COMEDY he went to the trouble son Stewart five articu- Bauman, of the factors only applying write all entrusted tо Referee Supreme to issue, by Arizona all over the lated attorney fee wrote on the facts this case.11 presented follow- by the readily as is witnessed field rely true, did particularly McMahon in that referee paragraph is in this The first sentence added). seminar, hours, working (emphasis Obviously, sponsored R. 99-100 after foregoing nothing equipment to do with the used manufacturer issue, recompensing second employer, their who attended at fees, claimant for incurred injured request foreman, were their being only adjudication. issue left for employment” the course of their R. 12. paragraph particularly The latter offen- Agnes Trapp, being Counsel aware of nothing amounting sive as but a mean- Arizona, certainly that result in knowl- ingless nothing. establishes diatribe. It It edgeable that Idaho courts do cite Arizona counsel) Agnes (through Trapp accuses as both law when it is seen sound and case, inviting attention to Arizona facts, applicable to an Idaho set visual- used, reneging being truly then of the comparison Trapp ized that a case to puerile asininity. exercise Whatever might similarities Johnson Stewart be called, might else it be and valueless that it In benefit to the Commission. the brief be, may it does not rise to the level of issue, for the the first Commission on liabil- legal argument. sound ity, only might helpful it said that “It be unacceptable equally hy- What is is the set forth the five factors Administra- Court, pothesis by which the in its turn case, Judge tive Law that Arizona listed emulates the and the up.” and see how the claimant matches readily seizing upon the Arizona five factor proceeded R. 15. Claimant’s counsel purported predicate test valid as a for de- up. illustrate that there indeed a match nying statutory attorney her claim for fees. McMahon, who wrote Commission’s secondary That entirely issue was to and surety’s decision on the of the issue liabili- independent underlying of the issue of ty payment authored a surety’s liability compensable for a indus- decision, well-considered decision. That accident; trial that earlier issue had been pertinent only liability issue has not very disheartening decided. It is to ob- challenged by surety. been further Commission, and, serve the in turn mem- Bauman, Unlike McMahon stated as to the Court, being bers of the taken in such this, Arizona Johnson case Stewart shenanigans. only this: brief, claimant’s Available filed Commission, parties, Both before the briefs Com-

with the is the manner in cases, detailing mission found it the five factor Arizona Johnson way useful the five factors set Stewart case found its into Idaho liti- address Supreme gation: forth the Arizona Court in a claimant’s cited it for its holding involving “that who were case claimant hurt in an acci- injured workers way while dent returning an educational on the seminar.12 ap- on the in her trial Arizona case written decision. It court’s or commissioner’s attention to plicable precedent. case law would have if she had added been better prefix ap- submission to claimant's which also 12. There is of no distinction between infra, pears might helpful “It be to set forth the way “hurt in (Johnson Stewart), an accident on to a seminar" five factors Arizona ... and see how "while at a seminar hurt up." R. the claimant matches 15. Even better coming going in an accident while from a that, than be that she had chanced to would (Ridg- restaurant where was available" food year Ridgway opinions. old read fifteen As way). There is no discernible difference on is, however, Trapp did write the McMahon viewing referee McMahon’s “found it useful” liability, and it decision on was unassailable. might Trapp's helpful." and counsel for “It longer para- Taken as a whole Mr. Bauman’s What Bauman would make Florida Court foolishly try graph nothing does more than Division, Appeals, on of First two occasions molehill, sniping make a mountain of a out citing decision, relying upon Ridgway, to and an Idaho claim, Agnes Trapp’s compensation all the while day perhaps one be known. East- will decision, avoiding deceptively our (Fla.1989), Rigdon, ern Airlines v. So.2d 822 543 to in the which was referred briefs of both the Elston, and Jean v. Barnes Collections 413 So.2d surety. counsel for the claimant’s (Fla.1982). proposition, general 797 receiving As a courts gratified and the to be What referee Bauman Commission briefs are informed of useful, citing any applicable may applicable an be made of counsel case is citation bring of counsel is to a whether needed or not. asinine. The function raven, application Like the of mechanical Find- “Quoth the nevermore.” rules. raven, spoke Fact, on ings Law, McMahon no more of Conclusions of Bauman, however, spoke on. Order, Arizona case. p. 9. agreed the Ari- attorneys were Two requiring application A test of sev- useful, might rule zona five factor be by eral criteria to facts is its nature accordingly it. McMahon includ- Submitted complex to more administer than a me- opinion only on the of her issue ed rule. It chanical follows the out- provid- liability compensation. Bauman susceptible of come is also less advance with this ludicrous ra- ed the Commission Thus, determination. even this case proposed as his basis for a Commis-

tionale undisputed facts where the are facts [the denying Agnes Trapp’s claim decision sion by counsel], stipulated were as the law’s attorney fees: clear, direction is less we are also less that the conduct We further conclude disposed challenge as unreasonable contesting the claim Surety of surety who judgment a denies a of compensation benefits was not worker’s grounds. legal claim on are Attorney fees unreasonable. application an This case involved of right, matter but must awarded as a which, rule, ‘going-and-coming’ v. by allowed statute. Troutner so-called Traf- noted, Company, spawned ‘excep- Control has itself we fic D Murphy P.2d 1130 K& exceptions exceptions, tions and one 95, p. Company, Land IWCD special Findings rule.’ being the errand 1987). (July Law, Fact, Order, Conclusions Code, upon Section p. 8. relies, authorizes an which Claimant legal question us precise before award of several by had never been addressed the Idaho only has grounds, one been Supreme most recent analo- Court. The Claimant, namely, by “that the raised decision, gous Dameron Yellowstone employer or his contested claim 646, 34 Garage, 54 Idaho Trail injured em- made (1934) years decided more than 50 ployee ... without reasonable prior claim. deter- to denial We original). (ellipses ground,____” comprehensive ap- mined that a more Attorney [sic], p. Fees Claimant’s Brief— proach the court in than taken required in to re- Dameron was order question The sole submitted parties evidently solve this case. The purely in this matter was Commission mind, same as the were of the inasmuch parties law. The filed a question of authority briеfs of both sides discussed facts, stipulation of which was joint jurisdictions, including a test from other in its adopted by Find- the Commission from the decision Arizona drawn remaining ings of issue be- Fact. Supreme Min- Stewart Johnson excep- concerned an fore Commission ing Company, Inc. v. Industrial Com- rule, ‘going-and-coming’ tion mission, 133 Ariz. 652 P.2d precisely not been addressed which had standard, (1982). That which involved previously decided case factors, ulti- application five Supreme the Idaho adopted mately by the Commission Court. this case. decide Law, we In its cited Conclusions Idaho law is not To the extent that Co., 43 Idaho Zeier v. Boise Transfer enable us ade- sufficiently precise (1927) Morgan v. 254 P. in a issues raised quately address the Inc., 118 Helicopters, Columbia authority persuasive particular (1990) to observe that jurisdictions and sources from other de disputes of this kind the outcome extent, To the same be consulted. must weighing series pends more on addressed question law than on the reasonableness of factors of question preposterous a conclusion that therefore opinion Dameron was the impression. most recent first decision, and, moreover, analogous en- surety does is well-established that a It signatures. their dorsed it with Unfortu- unreasonably denying act in a claim nately commissioners, one those compensation when for worker’s benefits great the trial bench and whom bar have question a law claim involves respect, Ridg- was a commissioner when Supreme the Idaho has which way was Bauman’s issued. statement has decided. In re never Hillenbrand’s mischief, great clearly done and evidences Death, 80 Idaho 333 P.2d 456 pertinent times he totally at un- 111 Ida- Malueg Enterprises, v. Pierson informed as the content of the briefs (1986). According- 727 P.2d 1217 ho analogous counsel. The involved most de- ly, Surety conduct of the in this case Ridg- cision Bakes’ was Justice decision unreasonable. way, a just and few months before foregoing reasons, For the Claimant’s decision, equally analogous was Justice be, Attorney and Motion fees should Shepard’s in decision Clark v. Mo- Daniel hereby same is DENIED. rine Const. 559 P.2d (emphasis added).13 R. 87-89 Ridgway 293. came After Justice Hunt- nothing in There of substance what ley’s opinion Kirkpatrick v. Transtector devastation, has written. is a Bauman It Sys., 114 Idaho 759 P.2d 65 All being signed by the two Commis- those cases involved an sioners, denigrated lofty purposes rule. coming-and-going of the goals Compensation Workers’ Act. Although opinion Ridgway his un- when decidendi Bauman ratio concocted discussed and unmentioned the decisions cursory does not withstand even a exami- referees, turn, and in equally two ready adoption Its nation. Commis- two ignored by the two Commissioners their tragedy; today’s ready sioners was ratifi- refusing final order reconsider the оrder by majority cation is a this Court fees, denying the Chief Justice travesty, Agnes may one Trapp that Ridgway continues to insist is still as put out of her she is at able to mind while intact when as it was written. If that be putting time pocket the same out of her so, why forthcoming isn’t his vote that the money pay successfully an attorney for cause be remanded to the Commission for pursuing against her claim ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‍reconsideration which includes Ridgway? surety’s spurious the resistance of the de- today’s majority No one in denies that fense, i.e., Idaho, University Gentili v. opening the claimant’s brief in the Commis- (1966), single 91 Idaho 416 P.2d proceedings brought play sion into both reading inappli- of which discloses its total Kirkpatrick and the later cability to the facts and circumstances Transtector, Trapp controversy. Huntley, authoring Kirkpat- Justice making Justice Bakes own Were inde- Court, opinion rick turned to the controversy, pendent review of this as he leading Ridg- case: he, does, generally Ridgway, the author of way. Equally point succinct and to the mind, legal more than other trained authoring Ridgway, was Justice Bakes readily Huntley’s opinion see would how the two Commission- Justice short awry seizing on Bauman’s concise: ers went only holding injury v. In- was within the course [fatal]

13. in Truck Ins. Exch. Comm'n., Ariz.App. dustrial Henderson’s opinion explains is: 1334. That Id. 524 P.2d at analysis hinges proper on an "accident aris- therefore of em- We hold that the indicia employment.” out of and course of ployment-related present here are activities opinion, justify finding conceded earlier in this Id. 1333. As as to the Commission such incompatibility expanded petitioner’s employer there is no because Arizona’s problem, likely is is not a normal duties a car sales- five factor rule associated with racing helpful so as to embrace that the man auto useful. operating IN rick within WAS OPERATING was the course KIRKPATRICK scope employment AND SCOPE OF HIS THE COURSE of his at the time of AT THE EMPLOYMENT TIME OF the accident is affirmed.

THE ACCIDENT scope This of review over find- Court’s ATTORNEY FEES ings of made the Industrial Com- fact attorney The Commission ordered fees findings is limited. Factual will mission pursuant to I.C. 72-804 in the amount upheld appeal supported by if on sub- be paid past of of all benefits 25% stantial, competent Nigherbon evidence. paid Kirkpatrick, be future to Inc., Ralph Trucking, v. E. Feller concluding there that were no reasonable 233, (1985); Lopez P.2d 1344 grounds upon Application which their Sugar Amalgamated brought Hearing could have been We (1984). P.2d 1205 However, agree. agree we also with Here, Commission relied Industrial General, Kirkpatrick Transtector and doctrine, ‘travelling employee’ upon the concedes, the attorney that fees should an provides employee’s that when which only upon percentage com- be based requires away him/her to work travel pensation paid from time Transtec- premises, he/she employer’s filed, Hearing Application tor’s within the course and will be held to be May 21, 1986. As Commission has scope continuous- his/her percentage deemed a reasonable 25% ly during trip, except when a distinct awarded, compensation paid we to be departure personal business occurs. and or- percentage appropriate hold that example, ‘traveling em- For under doctrine, attorney fees der in the amount ployee’ injuries which arise out Kirkpat- sleeping eating compensation paid all of necessities such as 25% compensable. general rick from the are Combined Transtector America, Companies May Insurance date of be awarded. P.2d 1367 See agree As Commission we also, Waybright, 59 Idaho Manion v. [sic, proceeding brought defend- (1938), wherein this 86 P.2d 181 neces- ground, reasonable we without ed] presump- established a rebuttable appeal also sarily conclude that the driving employ- that an tion ground, with brought without reasonable operating er’s car furtherance slight of our modification Here, employer’s the ‘travel- business. According- attorney fees award. employee’ merely an addi- ling doctrine appeal on ly, also award fees we liability tional rationale undеr 72-804, at- pursuant and order to I.C. § upon imposed Transtec- could have been respondent Kirkpatrick torneys for specifically found tor. accounting of submit to this Court an accident, the ‘at time of the argu- preparing for and incurred discussing claimant was business with to each of issues before company-provided car.’ in a co-worker make an appeal. We then Court on will substantial, supported These facts are accounts award fees which of. and, irrespective of competent evidence legitimate and reason- for Transtector’s doctrine, they employee’ ‘traveling attorney fee issue. argument on the able liability upon Transtector impose respondent. Costs during Kirkpatrick’s injuries sustained at 68- 114 at Kirkpatrick, The record further shows the accident. omitted). (footnote that, business, Kirkpat- discussing while it, about there Make no mistake Hadley had driven downtown rick and handling in the Commission’s much amiss to locate offices Columbus At compensation claim. Agnes Trapp’s they would businesses with to the Com- page her brief furnished 8 of meeting November Monday, concisely and mission, it is stated Kirkpat- R. at finding Commission’s Brief, 9; accurately Ridgway that and Kirk Claimant’s at (quoting both R. at 14 98 holdings Ridgway, from Idaho at that one who travels 565 P.2d at patrick were 1371) in (emphasis brief). claimant’s during his such covered The same brief the Com travel. alerted assertion, to Contrary referee Bauman’s a then from the mission to recent case majority both the plurality opinions Appeals, Court of v. Arnold Idaho Wise legal did address Ridgway, precise “the 20, 24, Co., Storage Idaho question.” & 109 The two Ridgway opinions, tak- Transfer (1985), together separately, P.2d 356 cited en Ridg which re- constituted spectable authority predicated pri- Idaho holding affirming as the on way basis its holdings, or Idaho and both are sound summary judgment granted in Daniel analysis far more recent than the 1934 action, tort “It has been established Wise’s decision, authority Dameron to employees whose work involves travel resorted, referee Bauman apparently be- held to be within the of their are cause he did bother to read briefs except employment employee when the by provided both counsel. departure personal a distinct makes errand.” opinions The at a Ridgway should have glance cautioned State Insurance Fund Trapp’s brief submitted to Commis- money in accepting Volunteer sion, 13-14, give R. should have served Department exchange Fire State for the Commissioners Geddes and Lanham some Fund’s compensation Insurance it policy, quoted concern. That brief from Lar- pay just agreeing com- claims for Law, Compensation Workmen’s 25.- sen’s § pensation. The Fund has been in business directly at 5-275 еxperiences Past many years. alerted quoted from in Justice Bakes’ exposure of its paying to know attor- opinion: ney paying fees when failed or refused to appropriate applied The rule to be claim. There is no conflict scope determine of workmen’s com- Ridgway opinions, the two and the Idaho pensation coverage employees whose authority upon relied in Ridgway included away entails travel from the em- Co., work Clark Daniel v. Morine Const. premises ployer’s employee at which the with a toCf. Larsen, normally Taylor, in 1 v. works is set forth Wineland (1938). Justice Law, 25.00, 988 Bakes Compensation Ridgway, wrote Workmen’s succinct, opinion. and it is a sound p. plurality opinion Bist- attributed to Justice Ridgway, 98 Idaho at 565 P.2d at line, Donaldson, joined Justice more Larsen apparently 1370-71. consid- expansive, providing to the trial bar good authority, ered Jus- witnessed the Industrial Commission an authoritative Bakes’ point tice reliance thereon. At that summary development of of Idaho’s opinion, provided quota- in the he same compensation law, including workers’ also emphasized tion which claimant’s trial brief construing Justice Frankfurter’s law, by illustrating it as the black letter as Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers Com- follows: Act, pensation which is identical to Idaho’s Employees whose work travel entails Compensation Workmen’s Act: away employer’s premises from the are Compensation Workmen's is not confined majority jurisdictions held conceptions scope common-law employ- be within the course of their (Citations omitted.) continuously trip, during ment ex- recovery test of is not a causal relation cept departure when a distinct on a the nature of between Thus,

personal inju- (Cita- errand is shown. injured person and the accident. arising necessity omitted.) ries out of the necessary tions Nor is it sleeping eating engaged hotels or restau- at the time away usually injury activity rants from home held are benefit to compensable. employer. All that is employ- ries suffered him arose out of and in “obligations or conditions” ment This is not to go come able ger” “where so purpose of out of which created so far from his thoroughly employee, even say that there are the “zone of helping employment and disconnected injury another, special arose____ the laud- might cases from dan- be- Pacific-Maxon, [95 page N.Y. the course of his 506-507, 72 Waters William J. L.Ed. (248) 483 [1916]. at ^[71] page (1951)]. Inc.], S.Ct. employment.” [O’Leary 340 U.S. ^[470] 112 N.E. Taylor, at 471-472 Brown- ^[504] (727) Matter at Ridgway, that would at P.2d service of 98 Idaho 565 at the say inju- entirely to that 1373-74.14 unreasonable later, mentioned, days just prior 14. As earlier four months ered until some and the cause of drowning. to issuing Ridgway, death was attributed had before it to this Court Appellant’s argument essentially is that the traveling employees ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‍con- another time, darkness, Co., travel the the and the dust troversy, v. Daniel Const. 98 Clark Morine danger by winding presented 114, inherent a road P.2d also a worker’s Idaho 559 293 by on bounded on one side mountains and the which ab- appeal from a Commission decision by presented special expo- the a other river liability payment USF G of of & solved peculiarly sure a hazard or risk associated held, per compensation. The Court Justice Thus, argued, is with the testimony opinion Shepard, on based case outside rule that travel and drivers, falls other that: two by work is not covered workmen’s com- from found The Industrial Commission that protection. pensation difficulty presented peculiar a no road Generally presumed it is that an by finding is the evi- That sustained driver. travelling to is not and work within the appeal. on and will not be disturbed dence by thus not covered course of 72-732; also, See Gradwohl J.R. Sim- I.C. compensation protection. workmen’s Howev- 655, 775 plot Idaho 534 P.2d 96 er, exception to that does when an rule exist 107, Corp., v. Boise Cascade 93 Idaho Johnson special exposure a such to haz- travel involves In absence of a P.2d 751 456 peculiarly the em- ard or risk associated with finding special exposure a or a hazard causally ployment and risk connected that employment, peculiarly associated with risk [Citations omitted.] the accident. general prevailing. Affirmed. rule 114, Clark, (empha- 559 P.2d at at Clark, 294. at 559 P.2d at Earlier Thus, added). application general of a sis provided opinion Shepard in that Justice presumption, wife and children of Leslie underlying circumstances: deprived Clark of their entitlement ben- were the decedent Leslie Clark On June compensation law. efits under the workers’ begin respondent agreed to Daniel case, work applied Trapp As to the instant the Clark Company at 7 a.m. of noted, Construction Morine a decision is to be not as concerns sure- day operator following at a case, a bulldozer as liability, yet ty's far more but as another site National remote work in the Clearwater said the State recent than the 1934 Dameron agreement reached be- analogous Such Forest. Fund be a recent Insurance d’Alene, Idaho, parties traveling Coeur at tween which contains a discussion rule, from the work site. employee general is over miles which and the there- it, to, which, p.m. Shepard June Clark left Coeur d’Alene At 2 on worded "exists as Justice company special exposure other vehicles owned to a in the two travel involves when such so, Although required to do peculiarly with the Morine. hazard or risk employment associated сausally general area around the risk is connected Clark knew the since site, agreed the other ve- Idaho at he to follow to the accident.” 98 work hicles. precedent Application existing Headquarters, passed Ida- of available vehicles After the ho, convincing wrongly twisting, Clark was decided. they winding, one- travelled a disposition lane, part case was stated par- The correct improved forest road which very dissenting opinion: simply in a River. That road the Clearwater alleled November, 1975, recently this Court open public As as recently graded, been employees I to be the most fundamental stated what take Service well as to Forest as guide principles of construction which must loggers, described as well travelled. and was compensa- applying traversing us in Idaho’s workmen’s which was a stretch road While law, namely, that approximately 20 tion fairly straight and feet width, the Work- be accorded to pickup inexplicably ’... there should left Clark’s Compensation and lib- Act broad men’s river. The time of into the road went construction, cases p.m.; that doubtful approximately eral fixed at accident was compensa- favor of person- be resolved in extremely should night dark and the tion, purposes the humane and that preceding were not aware in the vehicles nel room for to serve leave no acts seek body recov- these was not the accident. Clark’s controversy have guide should served to out of and “arose words Fund into recognizing Insurance State directly employment” come [his] no, liability settling its with her. But pro- pages In the from the statute. placed posi- to be. The Fund her in a conclusion, is set forth ceeded that there dropping compensa- tion of her claim treatise the status veritable historical tion, incurring expense hiring Trapp today’s which in law, all of given attorney.15 It should be a where things: may Goodson v. sioned number of a deer narrow technical construction.’ Company, (1975). causing suddenly roadway, L. W. Hult Produce have run on it; swerve to avoid another vehicle could have My me that ‘the leads to conclude research over; steering appa- him the vehicle’s forced rule,’ going-and-coming applied outside failed; fatigue may could ratus have have accidents, no of routine commuter context him; may a tire have overcome blown out— policies. longer carries out these fundamental consequence of which no a all is of in work- particular, the it has led to In this case unjust compensation case. men’s denying compensation to Les- result of Washington County, In Stover v. 63 Idaho lie Clark's widow. (1941), county 118 P.2d commission- op- required Clark’s as the Morine services crossing er was killed at a railroad while a.m., erator bulldozer at 7:00 o’clock of the trying get highway. to to from his home some 200 miles distant. Clark’s accidental Court, unanimously speaking through This travel re- death occurred incidental quired to the Ailshie, Justice stated: ready job to him to be on the ‘It is clear the business piling What is not is a start brush. this case (Washington county) was the and ac- cause pattern case. A case a fact commuter starting decedent on the tive incentive for Long, here is v. similar to the one Jackson courthouse; trip morning except to the (La.App.1974). Man- So.2d 205 In that case. employment, he would been not have power of New Orleans was under contract for decedent, trip, on that ... We conclude that utility company Gulfport, Mississip- with pi, at the of the accident resultant time supply to two cooks service crews for injury, pursuing doing his em- repair was course of work in the of Hurri- aftermath mine.) ployment.’ (Underscoring cane The cooks filled out their work Camille. Orleans, dispatched papers, were from New at 66. at 118 P.2d making trip Swanstrom, in their own were the 75 mile & In Murdoch v. Humes report to on-site su- vehicle and were pervisor. to the said: 6 P.2d 472 this was Injuries were in a car sustained furthering master's '... deceased was his present crash route. As in the actual en carrying part out interest and of his dutiеs site, begin work until arrival at the would employee; as an ...' 51 Idaho at 6 P.2d expenses paid, were no travel to be at 475. paid only be cooks were to actual coming-and-going rule should be dis- Morine, Manpower, hours thus worked. like carded. Commission, I reverse the decision of would attempted to ‘disassociate re- itself I which decision feel the Com- employees.’ sponsibility transporting its only pronounce- mission made because of that even circum- The court ruled under such Court, ments of and I would remand this stances, ‘traveling integral part case to the to reach a determina- this The court then contract.’ tion as to or not Clark’s accidental whether held, notably language this similar to that of his death arose out of and in past Court has used: the travel was in furtherance of the ‘Since employment by Clark, 98 Idaho at 559 P.2d at 302-03 general employer, the (Bistline, dissenting). J. during risk accident travel was a risk employ- with the nature of the interrelated ment, Fund, The State Insurance which has become plaintiff protected while and the guided been its much esteemed since it has assigned traveling place of work in administrator, present in this deliber- has case employer’s instructions obedience reason, ately good resisted a sim- without (Emphasis employer’s and added.) benefit.’ obviously ple, just compensation, claim Long, at 208. Jackson 289 So.2d clearly provisions of I.C. falls within should also be made that was Mention Similarly questionable was its con- 72-804. § proper of this not crucial to a determination putting juror legal Iris Yount to action duct It case as to what caused Clark’s accident. injury compensation for an in order obtain known, important. will be but is not never duty. jury while on Yount v. Bound- sustained commitment, important job What is his (1990). County, ary 118 Idaho employer’s based his commit- on contractual Yount, however, requires fairness the revela- Service, In required that ment the Forest had denied tion that most states at a.m. the Clark be on that dozer early morning 7:00 o’clock readily by perus- coverage jurors. following being As is seen day on Yount, guilty piggy- were occa- states” hired. The accident could have been "most claim, hand, pursued played her out she has its and lost. It could prevailed, application of 72- gained and has I.C. have credit tendering forthwith § compensated her for fees, 804 should have what- payment of oppor- but it declined the expense put she had ever reasonable been tunity. Today, if the membership the Fund’s unreasonable defense mind, proper were of a in addition to direct- predicated University Gentili Ida- ing that the trial court make a suitable ho, 416 P.2d 507 level, award for such attorney ap- Court would award fees on Where the Commission ruled that peal, separаte and further a assessment of “[Trapp’s] the time accident travel at imposed fees would be as a sanc- ‘going-and-and coming within the rule’ having tion for State Insurance Fund con- compensability,” only sin spurious ducted a defense at trial. gle remaining issue then was whether the possessed Fund was reasonable de Only message in that manner can the be fense, so, Clearly if what was it? she sent out that this Court intends to see that prove should not have been compensation claimants are to treated obvious, namely, that the accident occurred fairly. Idaho Code 72-804 dictates that going place not while to a where she was employer/surety pay shall reasonable coming regularly employed, or therefrom. compensa- fees in addition to the clear, Equally Trapp injured while tion, a decision which this Court is as “special within the errand” Commission, entitled to make as is the compensability. going-and-coming rule as to appears compen- when it that the claim for South, In re 430 P.2d C f. unreasonably sation has been contested. County Curtis v. Shoshone Office, 102 Idaho Sheriff's A APPENDIX Before the Industrial Commission good up- This cannot in conscience of the State ratifying sure- hold the Commission ty’s comply statutory Claimant, refusal with its Agnes Trapp, L. obligation pay attorney fees which obligated Agnes Trapp pay became Sagle Department, Volunteer Fire that her claim for

order Employer, nothing There adjudicated. would be supports majority’s substance which bald statement that “the conduct of Fund, Surety, State Insurance surety in this case was not unreasonable.” Defendants. put, telling are the claimant Otherwise we reasonable, and, so, if that its conduct was I.C. No. 90-709777 hypothesis was it reasonable? on what Nov. 1990. prevail in Trapp was entitled to accordance STIPULATION OF FACTS precedent, pre- and she did so with injection vail. The of the Arizona rule into parties, through attorneys, The their do fees issue the referee writ- hereby stipulate following are the facts aught decision is but the Commission’s matter, stipu- the above-entitled herring. an odious red stipulation of facts lation also constitutes 90-709779, certain, way in no did the in IC IC and IC 90- For absolute parties agree The the sole issue to appellate court decision 709825. introduction bearing by at this any Arizona have whatever be determined injuries claimants’ were of claimed fees. The time is whether the on the issue arising out of and liability fairly prop- caused an accident decision as to the course of their erly The State Insurance Fund rendered. states, injustice being injudi-

backing opinions able when administered of other which is an necessarily ciously. easy way go, but not commend- course, upon completiоn of the EMT pay the would enrolled member the $60 4, 1990, January p.m., On at about 6:10 fee, pay class member cost of Highway in Careywood, Bonner acquiring pressure a blood cuff and stetho- Idaho, claimants, County, in an automobile scope. Sagle bylaws It is stated Agnes Trapp, proceeding driven were service, completion years after of two EMT south when northbound automobile property belong the items of would crashing crossed into lane of their travel individual EMT. Agnes All into them. five claimants in Trapp’s injuries. vehicle suffered Sagle Department Fire has 20 vol- 14, 1989, On November claimant had unteer members and covers a district from completed application Sandpoint County to the Kootenai line ten Sagle Department. Volunteer Fire At Highway miles on each side of In time, signed the same she employ- with her Emergency October 1989 the Medical Tech- Intent, er a Statement of which was (EMT) nician count was down in the vol- prerequisite Emergency to enrollment in an department unteer fire due to a lack of (EMT) Medical Technician course scheduled time, certified At EMTs. an EMT period to be held over a of some months in being promoted course was Spirit at the Lake, Spirit Idaho. The first class was Sagle Lake Fire District office. The Fire copy scheduled for November 1989. A Department wanted to increase its EMT signed by of the documents claimant is and, therefore, inquired count as to the stipulation attached to this as Exhibit A. individuals who were volunteer firemen if occupants Each of the other in the car get of them wanted to involved with documents, signed the same and all claimants, program. the EMT all vol- occupants five were enrolled in the EMT unteer recruits of Volunteer Fire De- They way course. were on the to the Janu- partment, responded they all desired 4, 1990, ary meeting Spirit Lake at the to take the class. Recruits must attend time of the crash. department meetings four fire before be- precondition It is eligibility a for en- coming certified volunteer firemen. This rollment in EMT course that the indi- had occurred as to claimants before the sponsored by Quick vidual be Response a accident. None of the volunteer firemen (QRU). Unit At the time claimant and her herein, employer for the defendant includ- passengers signed their Statement of In- claimants, required were to take tent, QRU Sagle’s had only four EMTs. In the EMT course and the EMT course was QRU order to remain viable the needed directly part of the duties of the eight EMTs. In order to become members they signed volunteer firemen. Because QRU, claimant and the others had to course, up for the the claimants were complete enroll the EMT course. QRU “sponsored” by Sagle of the Fire Department, The Fire which at the time Department. This is students ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‍because all passengers joined claimant and her “sponsored” by Quick had to Response á EMTs, critically short of trained solicited Unit, QRU part whether or not that was a passengers her join claimant and department, hospital, of a fire ambulance department QRU, and its and to enroll service, entity, or other if the EMT As even that student course. shown exhibits attached, they agreed also all to remain particular was not an of the and make themselves as members available sponsoring agency entity. Each claim- years completion EMTs for two after of the signed agreement stay ant EMT course. QRU department fire years for two or- (See der that their skills could be utilized. In addition to the at- written documents part of Intent marked as Statement A, tached as Exhibit there was an oral hereto.) (and Exhibit A and attached The EMT agreement between claimant the oth- ers) Sagle Department Volunteer Fire course claimant in benefit each course-site,

age from to and the EMT Sagle Department. Fire claimant trained as an that each became sat- Defendant had no vehicles Emergency Technician. The Medical group isfactory for travel over a substan- the employer also benefit distance, tial and needed vehicular what by the Statement of Intent as evidenced equipment emergencies. it had for hereto, and as set form attached otherwise out above. January signed On claimant Benefits, Injury Notice of and Claim held Spirit The EMT were classes signed by also Helms which was Fire Chief and were to continue November Lake representative employer. copy of the A into April of 1990. The EMT During marked B. Jan- attached Exhibit of 140 hours classroom course consisted uary, all other did likewise. claimants qualified in- work books November, day this 1st Dated paid cost of $60 The tuition structors. understanding by each with the T. claimant /s/John Mitchell T. Mitchell Department Fire would reim- John Attorney for Claimants upon their suc- $60 burse claimants completion Sheils, cessful course. M. /s/Max Jr. Sheils, were not reimbursed for out-of- claimants Max M. Jr. gasoline Attorney mile- pocket expenses, such as Defendants 837 P.2d 799 DISSENTING OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Thomas GERSTNER Ninfa Gerstner, wife, husband and BISTLINE, Justice, dissenting on denial Plaintiffs-Appellants, rehearing. v. My disappointment majority’s ac- WASHINGTON WATER POWER COM today tion is not rooted in the fact that it PANY, public utility corporation, ignored say has what I have had to about Defendant-Respondent. totally but rather that it has disregarded arguments found No. 19295. cogent appellant’s petition rehearing. Supreme Idaho, Court of Trapp Ms. first reminds the Court of our Boise, March 1992 Term. in Sprague statement v. Trans Caldwell 7, August Inc., portation 116 Idaho 779 P.2d 395 (1989): provisions of the Worker’s Com

pensation Law liberally are to be con employee.

strued in Jones favor Morrison-Knudsen, Co., 98 Idaho 567 P.2d 3 Burch v. Potlatch

Forests, Inc., 82 Idaho 353 P.2d 1076

(1960). Liberal construction favor of

the worker is the act enable purpose

to serve the humane for which it promulgated, “leaving no room for

narrow, technical construction.” Hat Blanks,

tenburg

116 Idaho at (emphasis 779 P.2d at 396 original). goes Then argue: she on to majority

What the has done

opinion is totally disregard this stric- has, majority

ture. The in a case where stipulated,

all the facts had been ruled

that the Industrial Commission’s conclu-

sion of law that the did not act

unreasonably is entitled to treated as finding upon based “substantial evi- just

dence.” Such is not the case here. ample precedent point

There was State unmitigated

Insurance Fund to the truth

that claimant was covered. Rehearing pgs.

Petition for 2-3. agrees

This Trapp. Justice with Ms. Ac-

cordingly, I dissent from the denial of the

petition rehearing.

Case Details

Case Name: Trapp v. Sagle Volunteer Fire Department

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 11, 1992

Citation: 837 P.2d 781

Docket Number: 19305

Court Abbreviation: Idaho