Clark v. U. S. Plywood
1980 Ore. LEXIS 728, 605 P.2d 265, 288 Or. 255 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by a worker while engaged in activities for personal comfort on the employer's premises is compensable under workers' compensation laws if the conduct was expressly or impliedly allowed by the employer, regardless of the reasonableness of the worker's method.
Facts:
- George Clark was employed at a Gold Beach plywood manufacturing plant, working an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift that included paid breaks and a lunch period.
- The employer provided lunchrooms with tables and vending machines but no facilities for heating food brought by employees.
- Clark regularly brought a lunch that needed warming, and on the night of his death, he asked an assistant press operator to place his food container on a hot glue press to be warmed, a common practice among employees (2-3 times a week for others).
- The hot glue press was a large, dangerous machine (20 feet high, 15 feet square) with a three-foot gap between units, protected by a safety chain connected to a fail-safe device that prevented machine operation when unhooked; a sign read 'DANGER, KEEP AWAY.'
- The assistant press operator suggested Clark climb the charger himself, instructing him to drop the safety chain to prevent the charger from moving, which Clark did before placing his food on a hot ledge on the press.
- When Clark later returned to retrieve his lunch, the charger had just been loaded, and the press operator activated it, crushing Clark between the charger and a stationary cross beam, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- George Clark's widow filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
- A referee denied compensation for Clark's death.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the referee's decision and ordered the acceptance of the claim.
- The employer appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board's decision and denied recovery.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained by a worker while engaging in a personal comfort activity on the employer's premises arise out of and in the course of employment, thereby making it compensable under workers' compensation laws, if the activity was expressly or impliedly allowed by the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Peterson, J.
No, the court cannot say as a matter of law that an injury sustained by a worker while engaging in a personal comfort activity on the employer's premises arises out of and in the course of employment, but it can be compensable if the activity was expressly or impliedly allowed by the employer. The court rejected the Court of Appeals' 'reasonableness' test, stating it is inconsistent with the workers' compensation purpose of providing compensation irrespective of worker fault. It also rejected Professor Larson's 'implied prohibition' test due to elements of hindsight and difficulty in proving implied states of mind. Instead, the court established a positive test: compensability for on-premises personal comfort injuries is determined by whether the conduct was expressly or impliedly allowed by the employer. Implied allowance can be shown through common practice or custom in the workplace. Because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether supervisory personnel knew of the practice of heating lunches on the press after a machine addition, the court could not rule as a matter of law and remanded the case for further factual determination.
Concurring - Holman, J.
Yes, an injury sustained while engaging in a personal comfort activity on the employer's premises can be compensable if the activity was impliedly authorized by the employer. Justice Holman agreed with the majority's result and preferred its positive phrasing of the rule but concluded that the majority's 'implied authorization' test is functionally identical to Professor Larson's 'implied prohibition' test. He reasoned that the proof required for both rules would be the same: demonstrating that the activity was a usual practice among workers, was known to management, and was not explicitly prohibited. Therefore, while stated differently, the tests would yield the same evaluative process and result.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the legal standard for workers' compensation claims involving 'personal comfort' activities in Oregon, shifting from subjective tests to a more objective standard focused on employer knowledge and workplace custom. By rejecting the 'reasonableness' of the worker's conduct as a factor, the court reaffirms the no-fault nature of workers' compensation, broadening potential coverage even for seemingly dangerous activities if the employer implicitly condoned them. This ruling places a greater emphasis on employer awareness and the established practices within a workplace, potentially influencing employers to either formalize policies or better monitor informal customs to manage their compensation liability.
