 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kawakami v. City and County of Honolulu12/24/2002
that a lengthy antecedent deviation will bar recovery"), but chose not to apply this rule.
Instead, this court explained that, because decedent was "performing one of his duties for which he had been hired," id., and HRS § 386-3 stated if "an employee suffers personal injury . . . by accident arising out of and in the course of employment[,]" id. at 244, 473 P.2d at 563 (quoting HRS § 386-3), then the injury was compensable. See id. at 245, 473 P.2d at 563. Corden noted the presumption in HRS § 386-85 "is more than a procedural device that disappears upon the introduction of contrary evidence," id. at 244 n.1, 473 P.2d at 562 n.1 (citation omitted); but this court explained that it was not necessary to rule that the court should have given an instruction to that effect, seeid. at 246, 473 P.2d at 563, because it had ruled as a matter of law that the injury was covered. See id.
Corden is relevant to the case at hand, insofar as it addresses similar facts and the actions of an employee. I do not believe this case may be distinguished on the ground that "[Claimant] had no discretion as to when he could return the vehicle[,]" majority opinion at 10, and "was not authorized to take the [Employer's] vehicle halfway across the island[.]" Id. at 11. While such discretion was considered a factor in the Corden decision, this court focused primarily on the fact that the claimant was "performing one of his duties." Corden, 52 Haw. at 245, 473 P.2d at 563.
It is undisputed that Claimant's "job responsibilit . . . to return the [Employer's] vehicle to the Honolulu base yard each day[,]" and at the time of the accident, he claimed to be completing that duty. As this court has previously stated, "if there is reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, the humanitarian nature of the statute demands that doubt be resolved in favor of the claimant." Akamine, 53 Haw. at 409, 495 P.2d at 1164. See also Nakamura v. State, 98 Hawaii 263, 272, 47 P.3d 730, 739 (2002) (Acoba, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Ramil, J.) (noting that, "where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an injury is work-connected, it must be resolved in favor of the claimant" (quotation marks omitted)); Igawa v. Koa House Rest., 97 Hawaii 402, 411, 38 P.3d 570, 579 (2001) (Acoba, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("'if' a reasonable doubt exists as to the work-connected nature of the injury, it was mandated, i.e., 'demand ' by the statute that the issue 'be resolved in favor of the claimant'" (citation omitted)).
II.
The majority adopts a categorical rule which states that, "when an employee departs from his normal job duties on a personal errand that serves no purpose of the employer, there is no longer a work connection and any injury sustained during that deviation will not be compensable." Majority opinion at 6. In that regard, Larson does note that the "deviation problem . . . has produced some split of opinion[.]" Larson's, Workers' Compensation Law § 17.03 (2002).
A number of the cases cited for the proposition of a "substantial deviation" rule are distinguishable insofar as they do not involve a statutory presumption in favor of an employee. See Ogren v. Bitterroot Motors, Inc., 723 P.2d 944, 946 (Mont. 1986) (stating the Montana "general standard[,]" but not indicating any presumption); Carter v. Burn Constr. Co. Inc., 508 P.2d 1324 (N.M. 1973) (holding there was a deviation, but making no reference to a presumption); Hebrank v. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall & MacDonald, 212 A.2d 579, 582 (N.J. Super. 1965) (citing the majority rule which states that, " enerally, an accidental injury sustained by an employee while going to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|