Petschl v. Britton Motor Service

I respectfully dissent even though this case may be factually distinguished from Fredenburg. In Fredenburg there was evidence that travel to the metropolitan area would impose hardships on Fredenburg by adding “several painful hours of travel to his ordinary workday in order to commute to his workplace,” 311 N.W.2d 860, 864 n. 2, while in this case Petschl is capable of driving an automobile and apparently could travel without aggravating his shoulder and arm. This factual distinction suggests that it is not unreasonable to require an employee to seek employment in the same metropolitan area…