 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DORMAN v. CARROLL COUNTY12/30/1981
ntentions of the appellants.
The trial court was correct in reversing the decision of the industrial commissioner. The deputies were within the scope of their employment while they performed the special police work on the night of their deaths. Although the county could not afford to pay for off-duty deputies to be at the celebrations, the county received the benefit of law enforcement services rendered by the deputies. The celebrations were potentially explosive situations, and therefore the sheriff needed someone to be there to control the crowds. The county was responsible for law enforcement within its boundaries. Both deputies assisted in making arrests and in bringing the arrested persons to the Carroll County Courthouse. While not on "active" duty and not specifically required to perform the special police duties, the sheriff considered the men to be on "auxiliary" duty, and Rogers felt he had to perform the services to keep his job. When the deputies left the courthouse and went to the Hulsing farm, they did not abandon their employment. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss law enforcement problems encountered during the evening and attempt to find ways to avoid such problems at future celebrations. In addition, the deputies told the only active duty deputy in the county that they would be available to assist him if needed. They knew he would be leaving the county for a period of time. In fact, shortly before their deaths, he did leave the county, and he let the deputies know he was doing so by honking and waiving. The deputies were always on call in the sense that if they observed any violations, they were to immediately respond. At the meeting at the farm, a police radio was on at all times.
When the deputies left the farm to go to the Country Kitchen for breakfast, they were still covered under the worker's compensation law. Although sheriffs and policemen are not covered any time they are within their territory just because they are on twenty-four hour call, Hansen v. State, 249 Iowa 1147, 91 N.W.2d 555 (1958), they are not in the same position as ordinary employees going to and coming home from work. Warg v. City of Miami Springs, 249 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1971). The deputies in this case were on their way home from law enforcement duty. Therefore, they were within the coverage of the worker's compensation act. Larson, 1 Workmen's Compensation Law § 16.12 at 4-150. The fact that they were going to make a stop at the Country Kitchen for breakfast did not remove them from coverage. The Country Kitchen was on the direct route from the Hulsing farm to Dorman's home. Therefore, under both the dual-purpose trip doctrine (See Larson, 1 Workmen's Compensation Law § 18), and the personal comfort doctrine (See Larson, id. at § 21), the deputies were covered. See also Larson, id. at § 19.21.
The appellants argue that the fact that the deputies were speeding and had been drinking removed them from coverage. In Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, 282 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1979), the court held that commission of an unusual and rash act by an employee does not bar him from recovery of worker's compensation benefits. In addition, not every violation of a statute or rule amounts to a departure from the course of employment. Pohler v. T.W. Snow Const. Co., 239 Iowa 1018, 33 N.W.2d 416, 422 (1948). The facts show that the deaths arose out of the employment, and the deputies were in the course of their employment when they were killed. The agency erroneously applied the law to the facts of the case, and we therefore affirm the trial court.
AFFIRMED. [316 NW2d Page 673]
|