# Wallace v. West Fraser South, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 26, 2006 · 365 Ark. 68

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680039

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricky WALLACE v. WEST FRASER SOUTH, INC., and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** January 26, 2006
- **Citations:** 365 Ark. 68; 225 S.W.3d 361
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Tom Glaze
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680039

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an employee injured while walking back to his work site after a break was performing employment services at the time of his injury particularly where he was not allowed to leave the workplace area during break
- holding that when offsite employee was returning to work from a permissible break while still on the clock and not in a manner inconsistent with employer’s interest, the employee was performing employment services

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I agree that compensability must be determined on a case-by-case basis and that a bright-line rule covering all rest breaks is not appropriate under current Arkansas law. Nevertheless, the factors that I consider pivotal for compensability exist in this case. Wallace was on his regularly scheduled paid break in mid-afternoon and on company property at the time of the injury. Moreover, he testified that he had been “called off the break to do work” in the past. I take that to mean he was on call during his break. No proof was offered by West Fraser South that Wallace was involved in any prohibited conduct when injured. These factors decide the case for me as opposed to the majority’s more narrow construction that Wallace was returning to work and was ten feet from his forklift when he was injured. Tying compensability to those factors unduly restrict recovery in my judgment.
Without question, paid breaks on company property indirectly advance the employer’s interests by returning refreshed workers to the job. See Pifer v. Single Source Transp., 347 Ark. 851 , 69 S.W.3d 1 (2002). We said as much in the bathroom-break cases. See id.; see also Collins v. Excel Specialty Prods., 347 Ark. 811 , 69 S.W.3d 14 (2002). Wallace testified that his company-authorized breaks were regularly scheduled to occur daily between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m. Typically, on his breaks, Wallace said he would “get off of the [fork] lift, walk up to the break room, go to the bathroom, and go back to work.” He further said that in addition to going to the bathroom, he would often drink a Coke and eat a candy bar or something similar. The employer was benefitted by such breaks under these facts, especially when the employee was also on call as Wallace was.
The majority in a footnote appears to agree that the relevant factors for compensability are as I have outlined: Neither the majority nor I advocate a bright-line rule for these matters, but rather would decide cases of this kind on a case-by-case basis. The majority, however, unduly restricts compensability to the fact that Wallace was ten feet from his forklift when injured.
I would reverse the Workers’ Compensation Commission for these reasons.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680039. Public record. Not legal advice.