 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JOHNSON v. FARMER9/20/1995
by substantial evidence in the record. See Tigges, 356 N.W.2d at 512.
DMACC asserted that Donna's receipt of workers' compensation benefits was an election of remedies that precludes her from maintaining the present action. Donna asserted that the workers' compensation benefits were voluntarily paid without any application on her part. She further notes that the insurance carrier which paid those benefits also insured the tort liability, if any, of DMACC. In addition, Donna asserts that she was unaware of the legal consequences that attended the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits. In Bolinger v. Kiburz, 270 N.W.2d 603, 607 (Iowa 1978), which also involved the receipt of workers' compensation benefits, we held that, in order to invoke the doctrine of election of remedies, the party sought to be bound must have acted with full knowledge of both the law and the facts. The district court made no findings of fact necessary to decide the election-of-remedies issue. It considered the issue of whether Donna's injuries were incurred in the course of her employment on the merits and found that they had been. We review the district court's decision on the same theory that was applied by that court.
Donna contends that an injury occurring off the employer's premises while on the way to work is not incurred in the course of employment. She seeks to buttress this claim by asserting that her hourly compensation did not include time traveling to another DMACC campus. We observed in Frost v. SS Kresge Co., 299 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 1980), that
he general rule is that, absent special circumstances, an employee is not entitled to compensation for injuries occurring off the employer's premises on the way to and from work.
Id. at 648. We recognized in Frost, however, that there are exceptions to the off-premises doctrine when the employer exercises some degree of control over the area or situation in which the injury occurs. Id. at 650.
A leading expert in the field of workers' compensation law has expressed the view that, when an injury occurs while a worker is being transported to an intended place of employment in a vehicle owned by the employer, the latter's control over that situation makes the vehicle an extension of the work place. 1 Arthur Larson, Larson's Workmens' Compensation Law ยง 17.00, at 4-209 (1995). We believe that this principle holds true irrespective of how the employee's compensation is measured. It is particularly true where, as here, a supervisory employee of the injured person's employer is, on the employer's behalf, directing the route and operation of the vehicle.
This court in Steffens, 171 N.W.2d at 300-01, found that an injury occurred within the course of employment when the injured person was being driven by his foreman in the employer's truck to a site where the injured worker and his foreman were to perform measurements necessary for work to be commenced at a later time. Neither the [537 NW2d Page 773]
foreman nor the injured worker were to be compensated for the travel or the measuring activities. By analogy, we conclude that the district court's finding in the present case that Donna was injured in the course of her employment was correct.
II. The Claims Against Stephanie A. Farmer.
Plaintiffs also challenge the order granting summary judgment on their claims against Donna's coemployee, Stephanie A. Farmer. They contend that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Farmer was grossly negligent in causing Donna's injuries. We disagree.
Plaintiffs urge that the district court failed to recognize that the "actual knowledge of peril" requirement l
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|