Opinion
No. 70-132
Decided June 23, 1970. Rehearing denied July 21, 1970. Certiorari granted September 17, 1970.
Workmen's compensation claim by city police officer who, while serving as bank guard, was injured in attempting to apprehend bank robbery suspect. From finding by referee, approved and adopted by Industrial Commission, that claimant at time of his injury was employed by bank but not by city, claimant appealed.
Order Set Aside
1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Uniformed City Police Officer — Injured — City Street — Attempted Apprehension — Robbery Suspect — Course of His Employment — Compensation — City Employee. Where city police officer was on duty at all times when he was performing the duties required by his employment and where he was injured while in his official uniform and while attempting to arrest suspected bank robber on public street within the city; held, under the circumstances claimant was injured in accident arising out of and in course of his employment and is therefore entitled to compensation as a city employee.
2. Uniformed City Police Officer — Injured — City Street — Claim Against City — Not Defeated — Because — Also Bank Employee. Where uniformed city police officer was injured on city street while attempting to arrest bank robbery suspect, his claim for workmen's compensation against city will not be defeated by the fact that he was also employed by bank at time of accident.
Appeal from the Industrial Commission of Colorado
Berman, Lilly, Friedrichs Young, J. Bayard Young, for petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Peter L. Dye, Assistant, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
Alious Rockett, Francis L. Bury, Feay Burton Smith, for respondents City and County of Denver and State Compensation Insurance Fund (Division of the State Compensation Insurance Fund).
The petitioner, John Raymond Dore, was, on May 2, 1969, a police officer employed by the respondent, City and County of Denver. On that date, he was shot in the hand by a bank robbery suspect whom he was trying to capture. His claim against the City under the Workers' Compensation Act was denied by the Industrial Commission. He has filed here a petition to reverse that order.
The facts are not in dispute. The officer was regularly employed by the City and he also worked one day a week as a guard for a bank located in the city of Denver. On the day of the accident, while serving as a bank guard, the officer was standing in the bank lobby. A teller screamed and the officer observed a man running from the bank. The officer chased this man down an alley, off the bank's premises, and down a public street to a point where the man entered a car. The officer reached into the car to detain the man. The suspect fired a shot from his handgun and wounded the officer.
On May 12, 1969, the officer filed his claim for compensation alleging that at the time of the accident he was employed by the City. On May 20, 1969, the bank filed its first accident report. The State Compensation Insurance Fund, which insures both the bank and the City, admitted the liability of the bank but denied the liability of the City.
A hearing was held before a referee who denied the claim against the City on the basis "that at the time of the injury the claimant was performing duties for the National City Bank and not as a police officer for the City and County of Denver." The Commission approved and adopted the referee's order.
The only question to be determined is whether or not the accident in which the officer was injured was one arising out of and in the course of his employment by the City.
The City employed this officer to enforce the law and authorized him to make arrests. His place of work was the entire territory within the municipal boundaries of the city. The officer was on duty at all times when he was performing the duties required by his employment. At the time of the accident, he was in his official uniform and was attempting to arrest a suspected bank robbery in a public street in the city of Denver.
The accident in which the officer was injured was therefore one arising out of and in the course of his employment by the City, and he is therefore entitled to compensation as a City employee.
This court holds that the officer's claim to compensation is not defeated because he was also employed by the bank at the time of the accident. This same conclusion was reached in a somewhat similar factual situation in Mathurin v. City of Putnam, 136 Conn. 361, 71 A.2d 599. There the claimant was a policeman employed by the city of Putnam. He was paid by the School board of the town of Putnam to keep order at a high school football game. While so engaged, he was injured while arresting an unruly patron and it was held that he was in the course of his employment by the city and entitled to compensation from the city.
Accordingly, the order of the Commission denying petitioner's claim for compensation against the City and County of Denver is set aside and the cause remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE ENOCH concur.