Kindel v. Ferco Rental - 258 Kan. 272, 899 P.2d 1058 (1995)

Rule:

The two phrases arising "out of" and "in the course of" employment, as used in the Workers Compensation Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-501 et seq., have separate and distinct meanings; they are conjunctive, and each condition must exist before compensation is allowable. The phrase "out of" employment points to the cause or origin of the accident and requires some causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. An injury arises "out of" employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Thus, an injury arises "out of" employment if it arises out of the nature, conditions, obligations, and incidents of the employment. The phrase "in the course of" employment relates to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurred and means the injury happened while the worker was at work in the employer's service.

Facts:

Donald Leo Kindel was employed by Ferco Rental, Inc. Kindel was transported in a company pickup truck from his home in Salina, Kansas, to a construction job site in Sabetha, Kansan. On the way to Sabetha, Kindel and the truck’s driver went to a striptease bar, where they became inebriated. Kindel and the driver suffered an accident on their way home, resulting in Kindel’s death. Kindel’s surviving spouse and minor children claimed death benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied their claim, finding that Kindel had abandoned his employment, and therefore, the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. On review, the Workers Compensation Board (the Board) reversed the ALJ, finding that Kindel’s death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the employee abandon his employment, thereby relieving his employer from any liability arising from his death? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the Kansas Workers Compensation Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-501(g), was to be liberally construed to bring both employees and employers within the coverage of the Act. The court determined that the employee was only entitled to benefits if his injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The court further found that the Act failed to fix an arbitrary limit on the number of hours of a deviation from work. The court determined that the Board had not acted unreasonably in determining that the employee's deviation was not long enough to take him out of the in the course of employment requirement. Lastly, the court held that the employer and the insurer failed to affirmatively prove that the employee's intoxication was the cause of his accident. The court affirmed the decision of the Board.