Dependents of Pacheco v. Orchids of Hawaii
502 P.2d 1399, 1972 Haw. LEXIS 95, 54 Haw. 66 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee off the employer's premises during a paid and authorized work break is compensable under workmen's compensation if it occurs during the course of a reasonable and necessary personal activity that is incidental to the break.
Facts:
- Wilma P. Pacheco was an employee at Orchids of Hawaii in an assembly line operation.
- Orchids of Hawaii's policy allowed employees a 15-minute paid coffee break each morning and afternoon, during which they were free to leave the premises.
- On July 7, 1967, Pacheco received her paycheck before her afternoon break.
- Because it was anticipated that Pacheco would work late, the coffee break was her only opportunity to cash the check before the banks closed.
- Pacheco had previously gone to a bank to cash a paycheck during a coffee break on one other occasion.
- During her afternoon break, Pacheco and three coworkers left in a car to drive to the nearest bank, located three blocks away.
- Pacheco's supervisor observed the group's departure and cautioned them to hurry back.
- While en route to the bank, the car was struck by another vehicle, resulting in Pacheco's death.
Procedural Posture:
- The dependents of Wilma P. Pacheco filed a workmen’s compensation claim against her employer, Orchids of Hawaii.
- The claim was denied by the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.
- Pacheco's dependents, as claimants, appealed the denial to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board.
- The Appeals Board reversed the Director's decision and made an award of compensation to the claimants.
- The employer, Orchids of Hawaii, as appellant, appealed the Board's decision to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
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 an employee off the employer's premises during a paid coffee break, while engaged in a reasonable and necessary personal activity like cashing a paycheck, arise out of and in the course of employment for the purposes of workmen's compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, C.J.
Yes, the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. An employee who is allowed to venture off-premises during an authorized work break, and who is injured in the course of a reasonable and necessary activity incidental to such a break, should be compensated. A scheduled coffee break serves the dual function of providing an employee a respite from work, which benefits the employer through increased productivity, and affording an opportunity to tend to personal matters. Allowing employees to accomplish pressing personal business is a convenience that can also substantially benefit the employer by promoting an efficient operation. In this case, cashing the paycheck was a necessary activity, the employer acquiesced in such off-premises trips, and the employer benefited from a smooth-running production line where breaks were taken simultaneously.
Dissenting - Levinson, J.
No, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. An injury occurring off-premises during an unpaid coffee break while the employee is on a purely personal mission is not compensable. Pacheco was on her own time, not under the employer's control, and engaged in an activity for her own personal convenience that provided no direct benefit to the employer. The connection between cashing a personal check and the employment is too tenuous. The majority's reasoning creates an 'incident of an incident of employment' standard that is logically boundless and will perversely incentivize employers to restrict employee freedom during breaks to avoid increased liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the 'course and scope of employment' doctrine in Hawaii for workers' compensation claims, particularly regarding off-premises injuries. By treating personal errands during paid breaks as work-connected, the court moved away from a strict territorial test toward a more flexible analysis focused on employer benefit and acquiescence. This precedent broadens employer liability for injuries during short, authorized breaks and establishes that activities of personal convenience can be considered incidental to employment if they contribute to overall workforce efficiency and morale.
