GREEN v C R ANTHONY CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-66 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1981 JAY GREEN (FATAL) L . GREEN, , MRS. BECKY C l a i m a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsC. R. ANTHONY COMPANY, Employer, and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable W i l l i a m E . H u n t , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For Appellant: Crowley, Haughey, Montana Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, For R e s p o n d e n t : John Iwen, G r e a t F a l l s , N o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r l e f s : Filed; (JCT 7 1981 June 4 f 1 9 8 1 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t J a y Green was employed a s manager of Anthony's d e p a r t m e n t s t o r e i n Plentywood. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h a t G r e e n ' s f a t a l i n j u r i e s a r o s e o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment when h e was k i l l e d while r i d i n g h i s personal motorcycle approximately t h r e e m i l e s n o r t h of Plentywood. W a f f i r m t h e h o l d i n g of e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . Green had been employed a s manager of t h e Plentywood s t o r e f o r several years p r i o r to the accident. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t found t h a t on t h e d a t e of t h e a c c i d e n t Green a r r i v e d a t work a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a.m. Green s t a t e d t o one o f t h e employees t h a t h i s m o t o r c y c l e was n o t r u n n i n g p r o p e r l y and t h a t h e s u s p e c t e d t h e e n g i n e m i g h t b e "carboned up". A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10:30 a.m. Green a d v i s e d a n o t h e r s t o r e employee t h a t he was g o i n g t o t h e K l o t h e s Horse, a r e p a i r shop i n Plentywood. T h a t employee t e s t i f i e d i t was normal p r o c e d u r e t o have c e r t a i n goods r e p a i r e d when t h e need would a r i s e . When h e l e f t , Green i n d i c a t e d he e x p e c t e d t o b e back by 1 1 : O O a.m. when t h e u s u a l l u n c h b r e a k s f o r s t o r e employees were t o commence. The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e owner of t h e K l o t h e s Horse i n d i c a t e d t h a t Green a r r i v e d on h i s m o t o r c y c l e a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10:30 a.m. l e f t a s i n g l e l a d i e s ' shoe f o r r e p a i r s . l o n g t h e r e p a i r s would t a k e . and Green i n q u i r e d how The owner a d v i s e d him t h a t i t would b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 t o 2 0 m i n u t e s . Green r e p l i e d , " T h a t ' s g r e a t " and l e f t t h e s t o r e , g i v i n g t h e i m p r e s s i o n t o t h e owner of t h e K l o t h e s Horse t h a t Green was e x p e c t i n g t o p i c k t h e s h o e up w i t h i n 1 5 o r 20 m i n u t e s . Based on i n q u e s t t e s t i m o n y , t h e Workers' compensation C o u r t f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t was a p p a r e n t t h a t Green l e f t t h e K l o t h e s Horse and proceeded o u t of Plentywood i n a n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n on t h e highway. A t a p o i n t approximately t h r e e m i l e s n o r t h of Plentywood, Green l o s t c o n t r o l of h i s m o t o r c y c l e , f e l l t o t h e pavement and s u s t a i n e d f a t a l i n j u r i e s . Testimony a t t h e i n q u e s t r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t w a s t r a v e l i n g i n e x c e s s of 7 0 mph and n o t wearing a c r a s h h e l m e t , and t h a t Green p r o b a b l y l o s t c o n t r o l of h i s m o t o r c y c l e b e c a u s e t h e damper b a r was o u t of a d j u s t m e n t . G r e e n ' s d i s t r i c t manager t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s t o r e manager's d u t i e s c u s t o m a r i l y i n v o l v e d s u p e r v i s i n g employees, a s s i s t i n g w i t h s a l e s , h a n d l i n g i n v e n t o r y , customer r e l a t i o n s and c r e a t i o n of good w i l l . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Green's m o t o r c y c l e w a s n o t a company v e h i c l e and t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t was n o t p a i d m i l e a g e o r reimbursement o r p e r diem of any type. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r i s k which he p e r c e i v e d i n r i d i n g on t h e m o t o r c y c l e was n o t a r i s k o r d i n a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s t o r e manager's work. On t h e o t h e r hand, he was a l s o aware t h a t Green had a m o t o r c y c l e and d i d u s e i t i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s work a s manager. I n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t included t h e following: ... However, i n d e v i a t i n g from h i s employment t o r i d e h i s motorcycle, it appears t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t may w e l l have been removing c a r b o n from t h e m o t o r c y c l e and t h e r e b y improving i t s p e r formance, a n e r r a n d which c a n be c o n s t r u e d from t h e s e f a c t s as a b e n e f i t t o b o t h h i m s e l f and t h e employer. The d e c e d e n t h a s used h i s m o t o r c y c l e f o r t h e Company i n t h e p a s t , n o t o n l y t h e s a m e day of t h e a c c i d e n t , b u t on o t h e r o c c a s i o n s and w h i l e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y approved by t h e employer i t was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y prohibited. "4. "5. Taking a l l t h e f a c t s most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s C o u r t i s t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n d i d occur w i t h i n t h e course and scope of t h e d e c e d e n t ' s employment. Any o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n makes less s e n s e i n view of t h e d e c e d e n t ' s t o t a l d e d i c a t i o n t o h i s employment and t h e h i g h esteem i n which he w a s h e l d by b o t h t h e community and by h i s employers. While t h e r e was some c o n f l i c t i n t h e t i m e t h e d e c e d e n t might r e t u r n t o h i s job a s t e s t i f i e d t o by t h e v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , t h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t h i s employer and h i s employees c o n s i d e r e d him t o be on d u t y a t t h e time of h i s a c c i d e n t and t h a t o t h e r s a l s o b e l i e v e d him t o be on d u t y . " I n i t s judgment t h e c o u r t t h e n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e dec e d e n t G r e e n ' s widow i s e n t i t l e d t o f u l l b e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d by t h e Workers' Compensation Act. Simply s t a t e d , t h e s i n g l e i s s u e t h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s i s whether t h e f a t a l a c c i d e n t a r o s e o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of G r e e n ' s employment. Our f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h a t c o u r t . W c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment e f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s t o t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . Where t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , t h i s Court cannot overturn t h e decision. L e a s i n g Co., Inc., ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. S t e f f e s v. 93 83, 580 P.2d 450. This case i s s i m i l a r t o t h e S t e f f e s c a s e i n t h a t t h e defendant claims t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n t h e record t o support t h e conclusion t h a t t h e death occurred w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e and s c o p e of employment. The Workers1 Compensation C o u r t found t h a t Green was on a n e r r a n d which c a n be c o n s t r u e d from t h e f a c t s as a b e n e f i t b o t h t o h i m s e l f and t h e employer. I t i s apparent t h a t t h e c o u r t thought t h e Green c a s e comes w i t h i n t h e " d u a l p u r p o s e " r u l e , which w a s d e s c r i b e d i n S t e f f e s , 580 P.2d a t 454, a s f o l l o w s : " ' T h e d u a l p u r p o s e d o c t r i n e i s t h a t a n employee may, w h i l e t r a v e l i n g , b e on a n e r r a n d of h i s own, b u t i f he i s a t t h e same t i m e on some s u b s t a n t i a l m i s s i o n f o r h i s employer, he may be s a i d t o be w i t h i n t h e a m b i t of h i s employment. The r u l e was o r i g i n a l l y l a i d down by J u s t i c e Cardozo, i n t h e c a s e of Marks' Dependents v. Gray [ ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 251 N.Y. 90, 167 N.E. 1 8 1 , 182-1831, i n which i t was s a i d : 'To e s t a b l i s h l i a b i l i t y , t h e i n f e r e n c e must be p e r m i s s i b l e t h a t t h e t r i p would have been made . . though t h e p r i v a t e e r r a n d had been c a n c e l l e d . The t e s t i n b r i e f i s t h i s : i f t h e work of t h e employee creates t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t r a v e l , he i s i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment, though h e i s s e r v i n g a t t h e same t i m e some purpose of h i s own. I f , however, t h e work h a s had no p a r t i n c r e a t i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t r a v e l , i f t h e journey would have gone forward though t h e b u s i n e s s e r r a n d had been dropped, and would have been c a n c e l l e d upon f a i l u r e of t h e p r i v a t e p u r p o s e , though t h e b u s i n e s s e r r a n d was undone, t h e t r a v e l i s t h e n p e r s o n a l , and p e r sonal the r i s k . ' " . . "'The d o c t r i n e h a s been c o n s i s t e n t l y f o l l o w e d . ' B l a i r , R e f e r e n c e Guide t o Workmen's Compensation Law, 59.21." I n t h i s c a s e t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t a s manager of t h e s t o r e , Green i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment l e f t t h e s t o r e w i t h t h e s h o e f o r r e p a i r and took i t t o t h e r e p a i r shop. There can be no q u e s t i o n t h a t up t o t h i s p o i n t , he was w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e and s c o p e of h i s employment. Having been t o l d t h a t t h e s h o e would be r e p a i r e d i n 1 5 o r 20 m i n u t e s , Green concluded t h a t he s h o u l d d r i v e n o r t h of Plentywood, having g i v e n a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t he planned t o b e back t o p i c k up t h e shoe and t o b e back a t t h e s t o r e w i t h i n l e s s t h a n 30 m i n u t e s , t h a t i s by 1 1 : O O a.m. W e do n o t know t h e p r e c i s e p u r p o s e f o r h i s t r a v e l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e m i l e s n o r t h of Because of G r e e n ' s comment a b o u t h i s m o t o r c y c l e Plentywood. e n g i n e h a v i n g carboned up, i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t h i s p u r p o s e was t o f r e e t h e e n g i n e of c a r b o n s o t h a t i t would r u n b e t t e r . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e a c c i d e n t a r e also consistent with t h a t objective. I n A. L a r s o n , Workmen's Compensation - 521.74 Law (1978) t h e r e i s a n e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n of c a s e s c o v e r i n g l u l l s i n work and i n j u r i e s o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g such p e r i o d s . A t page 5- 58, t h e t e x t s t a t e s : ". . . I n t h e North C a r o l i n a c a s e of Watkins v . C i t y of Wilmington, t h e c l a i m a n t f i r e m a n , w h i l e on h i s l u n c h b r e a k and d u r i n g a 24-hour t o u r of duty, attempted t o c l e a n t h e o i l - b r e a t h e r cap from an a u t o m o b i l e t h a t belonged t o a f e l l o w employee. The p r a c t i c e of f i r e m e n making minor r e p a i r s t o t h e i r a u t o m o b i l e s d u r i n g l u n c h hour was w e l l known t o t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s . The c l a i m a n t a t t e m p t e d t o c l e a n t h e c a p by p u t t i n g g a s o l i n e on i t and s e t t i n g i t on f i r e . Af ter t h e f i r e had gone o u t , t h e c a p was s t i l l n o t c l e a n , s o t h e c l a i m a n t poured more g a s o l i n e on i t . A t t h a t p o i n t t h e r e was a n e x p l o s i o n , and t h e c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d f i r s t and second d e g r e e b u r n s on h i s f a c e and upper e x t r e m i t i e s . The Supreme C o u r t , a f f i r m i n g t h e C o u r t of Appeals, h e l d t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s c l e a n i n g of t h e o i l b r e a t h e r was a r e a s o n a b l e a c t i v i t y , and t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e e x p l o s i o n a r o s e o u t of t h e c l a i m a n t ' s employment. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n was b o l s t e r e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s k i n d o f p r a c t i c e was w e l l known t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s s u p e r v i s o r s , who n o t only d i d n o t o b j e c t , b u t s p e c i f i c a l l y allowed f i r e m e n t o make such minor r e p a i r s d u r i n g t h e i r l u n c h hour. " There a r e s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e Watkins case and t h e p r e s e n t Green c a s e . The f i r e m a n was on d u t y i n ~ a t k i n s t a the t i m e of the injury. Green had n o t l e f t h i s employment as manager and t h e r e f o r e c a n a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e on d u t y a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . I n Watkins t h e f i r e m a n w a s working on a n a u t o m o b i l e of a f e l l o w employee when injured. With Green w e may f a i r l y assume he w a s s e e k i n g t o remove c a r b o n from h i s m o t o r c y c l e . The Workers' Compensation C o u r t found t h a t G r e e n ' s a c t i v i t y was f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e employer a s w e l l a s h i m s e l f which a d d s a n e l e m e n t n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e Watkins c a s e . With Green we n o t e t h e a c c i d e n t happened d u r i n g a s h o r t l u l l i n h i s employment. Green c o u l d have accomplished l i t t l e had h e r e t u r n e d t o h i s s t o r e and been r e q u i r e d t o l e a v e soon enough t o r e t u r n t o t h e s h o e s t o r e i n 1 5 o r 2 0 minutes. I n a d d i t i o n , Green was t h e manager of t h e s t o r e . A s a r e s u l t i t would b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r Green t o l e a v e t h e s t o r e t o engage i n v a r i o u s t y p e s of a c t i v i t i e s which a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s t o r e managers, and which a r e c u s t o m a r i l y engaged i n , t o i n c r e a s e good w i l l towards t h e s t o r e . A s an example, i t would have been r e a s o n a b l e f o r Green t o t a k e 1 5 o r 2 0 m i n u t e s o u t of t h e s t o r e d u r i n g which he c o u l d have gone t o a r e s t a u r a n t i n Plentywood i n o r d e r t o have a cup of c o f f e e w i t h o t h e r s i n t h e community. Had he done s o , and been i n j u r e d t h r o u g h h i s own n e g l i g e n c e when r e t u r n i n g from having such cup of c o f f e e , i t would be r e a s o n a b l e t o c l a s s t h e a c t i v i t y a s i n t h e c o u r s e and s c o p e of employment. A s f u r t h e r p o i n t e d o u t i n A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation L a w 521.74 a t page 5-56: "The leeway accorded a n employee d u r i n g a n enf o r c e d h i a t u s i n h i s work e x t e n d s n o t o n l y t o r e s t i n g and s l e e p i n g b u t a l s o t o a c e r t a i n amount of wandering around and even u n d e r t a k i n g what o t h e r w i s [el m i g h t s e e m t o be d i s t i n c t l y p e r s o n a l activities. I n Penn S t e v e d o r i n g C o r p o r a t i o n v . e a r d i l l o ; a h a u l e r who had d i s c h a r g e d h i s l o a d and had t e n m i n u t e s t o w a i t b e f o r e he c o u l d make a n o t h e r t r i p was wandering a b o u t some f l o a t s moored a t a dock watching b a l e s b e i n g unloaded and f e l l i n t o t h e w a t e r w h i l e c r o s s i n g from one f l o a t t o a n o t h e r . Compensation was awarded. The a d d e d - r i s k argument was r e j e c t e d , l a r g e l y on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e r e was custom, a c q u i e s c e d i n by t h e employer, f o r h a u l e r s t o wander a b o u t t h e dock d u r i n g t h e i r T h i s c a s e i s a good i l l u s t r a t i o n of i d l e periods. t h e growing c a t e g o r y of s i t u a t i o n s , d i s c u s s e d i n g e n e r a l terms a t t h e o u t s e t of t h e c h a p t e r , i n which t h e ' m u t u a l b e n e f i t ' t h e o r y i s i n a d e q u a t e t o e x p l a i n t h e r e s u l t and i n which work connect i o n must be found i n a combination of known human n a t u r e and t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s and p r a c t i c e s of t h e employment." Larson r e f e r s t o a number of s i m i l a r c a s e s where a workman h a s been i n j u r e d d u r i n g a b r e a k o r h i a t u s i n h i s work and where comp e n s a t i o n h a s been extended t o such f a c t s i t u a t i o n s . I n the Green c a s e w e f i n d t h a t t h e f a c t s show a c l o s e r r e l - a t i o n s h i p t o employment t h a n i n s e v e r a l of t h e c i t e d c a s e s . W find there e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . C l a i m a n t a r g u e s t h a t i t s motion t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d be g r a n t e d . The motion was based upon t h e u n u s u a l s i t u a t i o n t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d on l(2nd C i r . 1 9 4 8 ) 165 F.2d 7 8 9 . F e b r u a r y 1 0 , and on t h e same day c o u n s e l f o r c l a i m a n t f i l e d a motion f o r r e h e a r i n g . s e r v e d and f i l e d . The n o t i c e of a p p e a l was p r o p e r l y I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f i l i n g of a n a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t s t a y s p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e b y removing j u r i s d i c t i o n from a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r Workers ' Compensation C o u r t t o proceed f u r t h e r i n t h e m a t t e r . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 136, 541 P.2d 765. McCormick v. McCormick C l a i m a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s t h e appeal i s denied. W e hold t h a t s u f f i c i e n t evidence i s p r e s e n t t o support t h e f i n d i n g and c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s widow i s e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d by t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , and t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i s affirmed. W e Concur: P

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.