Leckie v. H. D. Foote Lumber Co.
40 So.2d 249, 1948 La. App. LEXIS 675 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury sustained by an employee arises out of and in the course of employment for workers' compensation purposes if the employee, at the time of injury, is simultaneously performing their required employment duties and a personal task, provided the employer's business requires the employee to be at the location of the accident.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Leckie was employed by a sawmill, where his duties included scaling logs and filing saws.
- On a Saturday afternoon, Leckie's assigned tasks were to attend to the mill's engines and remain available to scale any logs that might arrive.
- The employer permitted employees to take scrap slabs of wood for personal use as firewood.
- While attending the engines, which kept all mill machinery including a cut-off saw running, Leckie picked up a piece of scrap wood.
- Leckie attempted to use the powered cut-off saw to cut the scrap wood for his own personal use as firewood.
- The piece of wood was not suitable for lumber and was only usable as firewood.
- While cutting the wood, the saw caused a severe injury to Leckie's left hand.
- At the moment of injury, Leckie was at his assigned post and performing his duty of attending to the engines.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Leckie filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits against the defendant lumber company and its defendant insurance company in the District Court (court of first instance).
- The defendants had previously paid 70 weeks of compensation but discontinued payments before the suit was filed.
- The District Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Leckie.
- The defendants appealed that judgment to the current appellate court.
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 while performing a personal task for their own benefit, but while remaining at their assigned post and concurrently performing their work duties, arise out of and in the course of employment under the Workmen's Compensation Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Not specified
Yes. An injury sustained by an employee while performing a personal act for their own benefit arises out of and in the course of employment if the employee has not abandoned their work duties. The court applied the two-part test from Kern v. Southport Mill. First, the employee must be engaged in the employer's business and not 'merely' pursuing their own. Here, Leckie was still performing his duties of attending to the engines and being available for scaling, so he was not 'merely' pursuing his own business. Second, the employer's business must have reasonably required the employee to be at the place of the accident. Leckie's duties required him to be at the mill where the saw was located. The court analogized this situation to other compensable personal acts, such as getting a drink, reasoning that as long as the employee has not ceased to attend to the employer's business, a concurrent personal act does not remove them from the course of employment.
Dissenting - Not specified
No. The injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because the employee was engaged in an act exclusively for his own personal interest. The dissent argues the majority misinterprets the word 'merely' from the Kern test, stating that at the exact moment of using the saw, Leckie's act included 'nothing else' but his own personal interest. Unlike personal comfort breaks which ultimately benefit the employer by refreshing the employee, cutting personal firewood provides no benefit to the employer. The dissent concludes that using a dangerous instrumentality in the exclusive service of one's own personal interest is not an incident of employment and should not be compensable.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the scope of compensable activities under workers' compensation by affirming that an employee can be simultaneously engaged in both employment duties and a personal task. It clarifies that the 'dual purpose' doctrine can apply even when the personal task provides no direct benefit to the employer. The ruling pivots on the idea that the employee has not 'abandoned' their employment, focusing on physical location and the continuation of primary duties, even if those duties are passive. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to deny claims where an employee is injured while engaged in a minor personal activity on work premises during work hours.
