 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Steinberg v. South Dakota Department of Military and Veterans Affairs3/15/2000
id not arise out of her employment because the injury did not arise out of a risk inherent to her employment. Rather, DMVA argues and the circuit court held, "[Steinberg's] injury occurred as a result of the exposure to a natural phenomenon and a risk common to all in the Rapid City area during the winter months." We do not agree with DMVA.
[ ] This Court in Rohlck v. J & L Rainbow, Inc., 1996 SD 115, , 553 NW2d 521, 526-27, reaffirmed its view that:
Worker's compensation statutes "do not limit [their] application to the periods during which an employee is actually engaged in the work that he is hired to perform." . . . This Court construes the phrase "out of and in the course of employment" liberally . . . In determining whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment, this Court looks to whether the activity which resulted in the injury is one which the employee might reasonably be expected to engage . . . whether the activity which resulted was naturally related or incidental to the employment . . . whether the activity was expressly or impliedly authorized by the contract or the nature of employment.
[ ] Under Rohlck, we look to whether Steinberg's activity of crossing the street to reach the parking lot where her car was located was one in which she might reasonably expect to engage. We find the answer obvious. DMVA provided the parking lot in which her car was parked, and to get there Steinberg had no choice but to cross the camp street. Steinberg was not required to stay on camp premises during her lunch break. Steinberg was walking to her car during her lunch hour, shortly after 12:00 p.m., a reasonable time for an employee to take a lunch break. Thus, Steinberg was "in an area where she might reasonably be and at the time when her presence there would normally be expected." 1 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 13.01 , at 13-8 (citing DiNardo v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 289 A2d 259 (1972) (claimant was compensated when she was injured after work when her heel caught in a crack in a sidewalk adjacent to the school building where she worked). " ccidental injuries suffered by an employee while leaving the building wherein his actual work is being done is generally deemed to have arise out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the workmen's compensation acts." Donovan v. Powers, 86 SD 245, 193 NW2d 796, 799 (1972) (citing 58 AmJur, Workmen's Compensation, § 221).
[ ] We examined similar circumstances of the claimant in Howell v. Cardinal Industries, Inc., 497 NW2d 709 (SD 1993). In Howell, this Court again stated the rule:
This court looks to whether the activity which resulted in the injury is one in which an employee might reasonably be expected to engage or has been impliedly authorized to perform ... or "if what he is doing is naturally related or incidental to his employment ..." [Employee] exited [Employer's] building through the exit [Employer] requested [Employee] and the other employees to use upon punching out from work. She utilized this exit to go to [Employer's] parking lot. [Employee] was injured only moments after leaving [Employer's] building while still on [Employer's] parking lot which was controlled and maintained by [Employer] for their employees. Clearly, crossing [Employer's] parking lot after punching out at the conclusion of her workshift is "naturally and incidentally related to her employment ..." [Employee] should be compensated for her injuries as she was injured out of and in the course of her employment. Id. at 711.
Also, in Walz, although a bad faith case, this Court left no doubt as to the compensability of an injury under circumstances virtually identical to those
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|