Groark v. Miller

Reynolds, J. (dissenting).

A review of the cases will show that we would be in error in holding in this case that as a matter of law plaintiff was not in the course of her employment. The trial court refused to dismiss the defense because in his view a question of fact existed. I agree that probably we have about all of the pertinent facts here, at least enough to decide whether the defense that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is sound. The question, of course, is whether plaintiff having not left the State Campus complex was within the precincts of her…