Lassila v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
The employer seeks review of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission awarding benefits to the employee. The employee was injured during an unpaid, unsupervised lunch period in a cafeteria operated by the employer on its premises exclusively for the convenience of its employees. The only question before this court is whether the coverage of the compensation act extends to this injury. We hold that it does.
The lunch break, whether compensated or not, is a period of activity instrumental to employment just as a coffeebreak, 1 a visit to the toilet, 2 or a pause for a cigarette. 3…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kaletha v. Hall Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Sweet v. KoloskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Sudeith v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Gold Kist, Inc. v. JonesCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1988
- Waycott v. Beneficial Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Faust v. STATE DEPT. OF REVENUESupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Olsen v. State Accident Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.