Opinion
No. 77-299 No. 77-383
Decided November 25, 1977. Rehearing denied December 15, 1977. Certiorari granted March 6, 1978.
From an Industrial Commission order awarding disability compensation to school teachers who were injured in automobile accident during their lunch period, employer sought review.
Order Set Aside
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — School Teachers — Injured — On Trip to Restaurant — Lunch Hour — General Rule — Applicable — Award of Benefits — Error. Where school teachers were injured in automobile accident that occurred while they were driving to a restaurant for lunch on a day when the school lunchroom was closed, the teacher had no work related services to perform during the lunch period, were not under any employer directions as to their lunch hour activities, and no other circumstances were present which would bring them within an exception to the general rule that injuries received while going to or coming from a meal off the premises of the employer are not compensable; consequently, the Industrial Commission erred in awarding workmen's compensation benefits to the injured teachers.
Review of Order of the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
William J. Baum, James A. May, Judith Caro, for petitioners.
George T. Ashen, Thomas M. Schrant, for respondents.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Donovan, Assistant Attorney General, John Kezer, Assistant Attorney General, James W. Wilson, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado.
Petitioners seek review of an order of the Industrial Commission awarding disability compensation to the claimants, Brandhorst and Bonger. The only issue before this court is whether the claimants' accident occurred within the course of their employment, as required by § 8-52-102(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973.
Both claimants worked as counsellors at South High School. Their workday was from 7:30 to 2:45 p.m. with a scheduled 45 minute duty-free lunch period during which they were free to leave the school grounds if they wished. Their salary was determined on an annual basis. On the day of the claimants' accident the students were dismissed early, at 10:55 a.m., because of a required teachers' meeting in the afternoon. Claimants' lunch period on this day from was 10:55 a.m. to 12:00, at which time they were required to be back at their school. The school lunch room was closed on this day. Claimants and some of their co-employees decided to drive to a restaurant for lunch. They were not given any transportation allowance for this trip nor was the car provided by the school district. During the trip to the restaurant the claimants were injured.
The Industrial Commission found that the claimants were in the course and the scope of their employment when they were injured. Petitioners argue that, because no special circumstances are present which would bring this accident within an exception to the rule governing off-premises luncheon trips, claimants were not performing services arising out of and in the course of their employment and thus the injuries are not compensable. We agree with petitioners.
Although injuries which occur on the employer's premises during lunch time are compensable, Industrial Commission v. Golden Cycle Corp., 126 Colo. 68, 246 P.2d 902, generally, injuries that occur during trips to and from a meal when the employee leaves the premises of his employer for the meal are not compensable. 1 A. Larson, Workers' Compensation Law § 15.51. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, as for example, when the employer provides transportation for the employee. See Carlile Corp. v. Antaki, 162 Colo. 376, 426 P.2d 549.
[1] Here, however, claimants had no work related services to perform, and were not under any employer directions as to their lunch hour activities, nor were any other circumstances present that would bring them within an exception to the general rule.
Under these undisputed facts, we reject the legal conclusion of the commission, see Dorsch v. Industrial Commission, 185 Colo. 219, 523 P.2d 435, and hold that, as a matter of law, claimants were not acting within the course of their employment when injured.
Order set aside.
JUDGE ENOCH concurs.
JUDGE PIERCE dissents.