"`the employee must be so intoxicated, as shown by the evidence, that the court can say, as a matter of law, that the injury arose out of his drunken condition and not out of his employment'"
How later courts described this case
- "`the employee must be so intoxicated, as shown by the evidence, that the court can say, as a matter of law, that the injury arose out of his drunken condition and not out of his employment'"
- "Whenever an employee is so drunk and helpless that he can no longer follow his employment he cannot be said to be engaged in his employment, and when injured in that condition his injury does not arise out of his employment"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting:
I agree that a reasonable amount of drinking may be included within the course of employment of one in claimant’s position. When that drinking reaches the degree of intoxication manifested in this record, however, a finding that a resulting injury arises out of and in the course of employment is, in my judgment, contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (1A A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation sec. 34.00 (1979).) I believe the arbitrator in this case correctly denied compensation.
MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI joins in this dissent.