Legal Opinion · Dissent

Johnson v. Toro Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 25, 1983No. CX-82-981Published

1DissentPeterson, Justice

I respectfully dissent. In my view the undisputed facts require the conclusion that employee Carol Johnson’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment with relator, Toro Company. The result should not be determined by semantic rather than substantive matters of fact.

Employee was invited to a buffet dinner; she was neither “directed” nor “required” to attend. Similarly, she was offered a Christmas gift of a turkey, for which it was only necessary that she appear in advance to obtain a card — at most a condition for the gift.

The applicable statute, Minn.Stat. § 176.-011,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ethen v. Franklin Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  2. Ramaker v. Marjae, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. Pasko v. BEECHER COMPANYSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API