Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hill v. TERRAZZO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 15, 1968No. 40680Published

1DissentOtis, Justice

I cannot agree that the compensation act was intended to confer benefits on an employee whose injury did not occur in the course of his employment nor while he was engaged in any personal mission permitted by the terms of his employment agreement. As I read the cases, we have ruled squarely the other way in a line of decisions commencing with Callaghan v. Brown, 218 Minn. 440, 16 N. W. (2d) 317, up to and including Mills v. Standard Parts Serv. Co. 269 Minn. 501, 131 N. W. (2d) 546.

When this employee left the premises prior to the time his work began, his only purpose was to deposit in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Locke v. County of SteeleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  2. Johannsen v. ACTION CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  3. Sweet v. KoloskySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  4. Callaghan v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  5. Kaplan v. Alpha Epsilon Phi SororitySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API