{ "id": 1712533, "name": "J. & G. CABINETS, Employer; ST. PAUL INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier v. Tony HENNINGTON, Employee", "name_abbreviation": "Cabinets v. Hennington", "decision_date": "1980-06-18", "docket_number": "CA 80-77", "first_page": "789", "last_page": "795", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "269 Ark. 789" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "600 S.W.2d 916" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "368 S.W. 2d 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10154492, 1681351 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/368/0087-01", "/ark/236/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 Ark. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681351 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 A.L.R. 1461", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560169 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 A. 2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 N.H. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 4458243 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/103/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 Ark. 850", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1600647 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "853" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/247/0850-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 Ark. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719841 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/244/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 Ark. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1694100 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/232/0658-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 494, "char_count": 8829, "ocr_confidence": 0.739, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.073073765700006e-07, "percentile": 0.8574808801594225 }, "sha256": "a3f08f3cf666c020e825c949d9085e00487ef08bb9d285c26570dff083459674", "simhash": "1:a589e4d0a132fa68", "word_count": 1510 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:47.346821+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hays, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "J. & G. CABINETS, Employer; ST. PAUL INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier v. Tony HENNINGTON, Employee" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "James H. Pilkinton, Judge.\nThis workers\u2019 compensation claim involves an injury which occurred during appellee\u2019s lunch hour. The issue presented on appeal is whether, upon the record, appellee\u2019s injury could properly be found to have arisen out of and in the course of the employment.\nThe material facts in this case are not in dispute. Appellant J. & G. Cabinets was in the business of manufacturing wood cabinets at Springdale, Arkansas, and Tony Hennington, a high school senior, was employed on a part-time basis under a work-study program. J. & G. Cabinets allowed the employees to use the shop machines during breaks for meals, and at other periods on the employees\u2019 own time.\nHennington worked a split shift from 1:45 p.m. to 9 p.m., with an hour off for an evening lunch from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. On September 27, 1978, appellee used his meal break to cut out a gun stock for his personal use. While using the appellant\u2019s saw, appellee sustained an injury to his right index finger. Appellants denied a claim for workers\u2019 compensation benefits contending the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge who found appellee\u2019s injury did arise out of and in the course of his employment. On appeal, the Worker\u2019s Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted in full the findings, conclusions and award of the administrative law judge. The appellants have appealed from the decision of the Commission. The sole issue here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding and award of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission that appellee\u2019s injury arose out of and in the course of employment with appellant J. & G. Cabinets.\nIt is undisputed that when the appellee was injured he was engaged in a project of his own during his evening lunch hour. He was, however, on his employer\u2019s premises, and using his employer\u2019s machinery and electricity in an enterprise which had been expressly permitted by the employer; and which was consistent with the customary practice of the employer to allow employees to use the shop equipment on personal projects.\nThe evidence shows that the appellee was hired under a work-study program, and that it was understood he was expected to become familiar with the operation of various machines in the establishment. The Commission found that although appellee was not required to remain at his place of work during the lunch break, by voluntarily doing so he continued to be under the guidelines of his employment relationship; and that he was injured as a result of the use of equipment furnished and controlled by the employer. It is clear that appellee had permission to use the shop tools for the purpose involved.\nFor reversal appellants rely on Robbins v. Jackson, 232 Ark. 658, 339 S.W. 2d 417 (1960) and West Tree Service, Inc.v. Hopper, 244 Ark. 348, 425 S. W. 2d 300 (1968). Those cases are distinguishable from the one before us on the facts. It is at once apparent that the circumstances which prevented recovery in Robbins v. Jackson, supra, and West Tree Service v. Hopper, supra, are not present in the case before us. Also here the Commission made factual findings in favor of the claimant. The elements mentioned in the West case as necessary before a claim of this type could be considered compensable are shown by the evidence to be present in the case before us. See Lofland Co. v. Simpkins, 247 Ark. 850 at 853, 448 S.W. 2d 39 (1969).\nActivities of a personal nature, not forbidden but reasonably to be expected, may be a material incident of the employment and injuries suffered in the course of such activities are compensable. The fact that the injury is suffered during a lunch break, when the employee is not required to be on the premises, does not alter this principle. The controlling issue is whether the activity is reasonably expectable so as to be an incident of the employment, and thus in essence apart of it. Maheaux v. Cove-Craft, Inc., 103 N.H. 71, 164 A. 2d 574 (1960).\nA claimant before the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission must prove that the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The phrase \u201carising out of the employment\u201d refers to the origin or cause of the accident and the phrase \u201cin the course of the employment\u201d refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which the injury occurred. Bass v. Mecklenburg County, 258 N.C. 226, 128 S.E. 2d 570. In order for an injury to arise out of the employment, it must be a natural and probable consequence or incident of the employment and a natural result of one of its risks.\nThere is substantial evidence here to support the Commission\u2019s finding that the appellee\u2019s injury \u201carose out of\u2019 his employment for compensation purposes since the injury resulted from a risk to which the appellee\u2019s employment exposed him. The further determination of the Commission that the injury occurred \u201cin the course of\u2019 the appellee\u2019s employment was also warranted by the evidence. The testimony in this case not only shows that the use appellee was making of the employer\u2019s machinery was known to the employer and was a permitted use, but also that under the terms upon which the appellee was hired it was a use encouraged by the employer as a condition of the employment. See An-not., 161 A.L.R. 1461; 1A Larson, 'Workmen\u2019s Compensation Laiv, \u00a7 27.31(b). So the employer here not only authorized the use of the shop equipment by the employees but actually encouraged it. It was something that almost all employees took advantage of and was not unusual or peculiar to this particular claimant.\nOn this record there is evidence to support the Commission\u2019s conclusion that appellee\u2019s activities in this case were such which could not \u201crightly be called a leaving of the employment.\u201d Maheux v. Cove-Craft, Inc., supra; 1A Larson, Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, \u00a7 20.20.\nAppellant argues that the practice of the employer in letting employees use the shop equipment was for the benefit of the employees only, and did not ensue to the benefit of the employer in any manner. The employer testified that it was hard to keep employees, good or bad. He said that the policy of letting employees use the shop equipment on their own time would possibly help him retain an employee that he would otherwise lose. The question of benefit to the employer may be a close one. In fact, this whole case presents a close question of causation. But be that as it may, it seems to us that the benefits, if any, to J. & G. Cabinets, the employer, and the nearness or remoteness of the employment as a cause of this injury, were matters of fact the determination of which rested with the Commission. Williams v. Central Flying Service, Inc., 236 Ark. 709, 368 S.W. 2d 87 (1963). The Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission found that this accident did arise out of and in the course of the employment. As we find substantial evidence in the record to support this determination, it is our duty to affirm.\nIn deciding this case we do not enunciate a set of rules that will be applicable to all so-called \u201clunch break\u201d cases. In affirming the decision of the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission, we simply hold that, under the circumstances of the present case, there is ample evidence in this record to support the finding of the Commission that the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.\nAffirmed.\nHays, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "James H. Pilkinton, Judge." }, { "text": "Steele Hays, Judge,\ndissenting. I respectully dissent. I would reverse this case as I cannot agree that an employee who injures himself by working on his own time, for his own aims and diversions, in which the employer has no conceivable interest or benefit, can be said to have incurred an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. No advantage in any real sense was derived by the employer from the activity of the employee at the time of his injury so as to enable one to say that the ends of the employer were somehow served. It is not even contended that the employee acquired greater skill by his off-time use of the machinery so that the employer would have ultimately benefitted by the increased skill of the employee.\nThe end result of such a holding is that employees could lose some of the benefits they may now enjoy, as employers will presumably be more likely to preclude any permissive use of company facilities rather than undergo additional risk of injury.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Steele Hays, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Davis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, for appellants.", "Evans, Ludwig & Evans, by: James E. Evans, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. & G. CABINETS, Employer; ST. PAUL INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier v. Tony HENNINGTON, Employee\nCA 80-77\n600 S.W. 2d 916\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 18, 1980\nReleased for publication July 8, 1980\nDavis, Bassett, Cox & Wright, for appellants.\nEvans, Ludwig & Evans, by: James E. Evans, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0789-01", "first_page_order": 827, "last_page_order": 833 }